Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness Part A

Owyhee
Canyonlands
Wilderness
Environmental .
lm pact
Statement
Draft
• •
-.
~ v
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
OREGON- IDAHO- NEVADA
1984
FEB 2 7 1~~ 8 ~.t -oolf
,, .
1
I
IN REPLY
fU~FEK TO:
•.
8500
Dear Reviewer:
3948 Development Avenue·
Boise, Idaho 83705
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Draft Owyhee Canyonlands
Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement.
The BLM·proposes to recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that 374,160
acres of public land in eight wilderness study areas (WSAs) are suitable for
wilderness designation and 64,467 acres are nonsuitabie for wilderne~s ·
designation. The WSAs are located along the Owyhee River in Malheur County,
Oregon; Owyhee County, Idaho; and Elko ~ounty, Nevada.
The draft document analyzes the environmental consequences of the proposal and
four alternatives ranging from no wilderness to all wilderness for the eight
WSAs. It also evaluates the BLM planning criteria and quality standards used
for determining the suitability or nonsuitability of wilderness designation on
the public lands.
3\
The public comment period wili continue to May ~1984. Written comments may
be submitted anytime during the comment period to the Bureau of Land Manage­ment,
Boise-District Office, 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83705.
Five public hearings have also been scheduled to receive public comments on
the proposed wilderness recommendations. Each hearing will be prec"eeded by an
optional "open house" s-ession to a:l:scuss the proposed" wildernes.s recommenda­tions,
followed by the formal "public hearing" to receive comments. Hearings
times and locations are shown on the back of this letter.
All public comments will receive consideration in preparation of the final EIS
and Wilderness Study Report.. The final EIS and Wilderness Study Report will
then be forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior and the President for
review and recommendation. uitimately, Congress will make· ·the "final decision
on whether any of the areas will be designated as wilderness.
For further information, please contact Ted Milesnick or John Benedict at this
office ((208) 334-1582).
Sincerely
Enclosures
'
f
'
'I
OREGON IDAHO
NEVADA
@)
. Blue
Mtn.
E.I.S. AREA
I· }
,
"' 2
<(
a:
<(
0" '
a:
<(
1-,
2
<(
"'
Jordan Vallevl
§
OREGON
----NEVADA
I
o.,.
J­-
s."' "'
"r' j Sliver City
DeLamar
• South Mountain
O~hel;'_
.,• •
• Haydl;'n Peak
~
OC-
1-,>.
'9_..
1-"'
OWYHEE CAN'YONLANDS WILDERNESS
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
MAP 1
@ .
Grasmere'
Riddle
~
·~~.
.0 \\'
l-l.S
.1'\\l­LlS"\
SUMMARY
The purpose of the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness EIS is to develop a
recommendation concerning the suitability of wilderness designation for
eight wilderness study areas (WSAs) along the Owyhee River where the
states of Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada join. The EIS was prepared in
conformance with the BLM Wilderness Study Policy and planning regulations
43 CFR 1600. The eight WSAs under consideration are:
Total Acresl/
WSA Acres Idaho Oregon Nevada
OR-3-195 (ID-16-48B); 214,380 33,700 180,680 0
Owyhee River Canyon
ID-16-48C; Little Owyhee River 24,600 24,600 0 0
ID-16-49A; Owyhee River-Deep 70,160 70,160 0 0
Creek
ID-16-49D; Yatahoney Creek 9,990 9,990 0 0
ID-111(16)-49E; Battle Creek 31,540 31,540 0 0
ID-16-52; Juniper Creek 13,150 13,150 0 0
(Upper Owyhee River)
ID-16-53 (NV-010-103A); South 50,352 42,510 0 7,842
Fork Owyhee River
NV-010-106; Owyhee Canyon 21,875 0 0 21,875
TOTAL 436,047 225,650 180,680 29,717
1/ Acreages previously published in intensive inventory decisions differ
from those of the wilderness study because of variations in map
projections and planimeter accuracy, and due to an inventory decision
(December 30, 1982) by the Secretary of the Interior which eliminated
WSA lands having mineral rights held by the State of Oregon.
The following issues have been identified for analysis in this EIS: the
impact of wilderness designation or nonwilderness designation on livestock
grazing, public access, wildlife populations, vegetation, watershed
values, mineral and energy development, wilderness values and the economic
impact to local livestock operators and local communities.
The five land management alternatives presented are developed based upon:
1. the issues of concern to the public and BLM managers,
2. ,the manageability of the WSAs as wilderness,
3. the relative wilderness values of the WSAs, and
4. the degree of conflict between competing resource values.
The acres recommended as suitable and nonsuitable in the five alternatives
are shown in the following table:
i
Proposed
Action Other Alternatives
All No Canyon-
Manageable Wilderness/ lands Wildlife All
WSA Wilderness No Action Wilderness Wilderness Wilderness
OR-3-195 172,095* 0 45,000 142,570* 214,380
(ID-16-48B)
ID-16-48C 24,600 0 6,000 8,460 24 '600
ID-16-49A 67,400* 0 18,000 55,530* 70,160
ID-16-49D 9,550 0 2,000 9,550 9,990
ID-111-49E 31,880* 0 2,200 26,380* 31,540
ID-16-52 11' 170 0 3,200 9,930 13 '150
ID-16-53 43,940 0 9,000 35,070 50,352
(NV-010-103A)
NV-010-106 13,525 0 1,600 0 21,875
Total Suitable 374,160 0 87,000 287,490 436,047
Total Nonsuitable 64,467 436,047 349,047 151,137 0
* Includes acreage outside the WSA boundaries.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The impacts from wilderness designation or nondesignation are similar
in each WSA. The summaries presented for each land management alterna­tive
refer to all WSAs unless specified.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action (All Manageable Wilderness Alterna­tive),
374,160 acres of BLM land in eight WSAs would have their
wilderness characteristics preserved under a Congressional wilderness
designation. Wilderness characteristics would be diminished on 63,267
acres of plateau. There ·.are 1,200 acres of canyonlands outside the
wilderness area which would continue to have their wilderness charac­teristics
maintained under an Owyhee River area of critical
environmental concern (ACEC).
On the 63,267 acres of plateau lands not designated, naturalness
and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude are expected
to decline because of rangeland development projects, increased
grazing use and motorized vehicle use, and potentially from mineral
and energy development.
Under wilderness, the WSAs' supplemental values would be pre­served,
including scenic, wildlife, vegetation and cultural values.
The wilderness area would provide representation of the rhyolitic
canyonlands/sagebrush-bunchgrass ecosystem (Sagebrush-Steppe system)
in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The ecological
condition of native vegetation would improve. The area would maintain
its undisturbed natural scenic beauty. Bighorn sheep habitat would be
protected from any encroachment and the bighorn population would
continue to grow. Historic and prehistoric archaeological sites would
ii
•!,
receive less disturbance and improved protection from recreation and
livestock grazing.
Primitive e~periences associated with river running and back
packing would remain the principal recreation opportunities in the
area. Semi-primitive motorized recreation use would be prohibited on
16.5 miles of roads and 77.4 miles of ways. This would cause some
hunting use to be displaced onto surrounding nonwilderness lands.
Boating and backpacking use is projected to increase to 13,000 user
days by the year 2002 while hunting use could increase to 2,400 user
days.
Wilderness designation would limit some livestock water develop­ments
and vegetation treatments, and hinder the full implementation of
grazing systems needed to improve the productivity of rangelands for
livestock grazing. Livestock use within the wilderness would be
limited to about the level occurring at time of designation. However,
the annual livestock use within affected allotments could increase
54,954 AUMs (225,698 AUMs to 280,652 AUMs) in 20 years because of
increased livestock use outside of the wilderness area.
All wilderness lands would be closed to mineral and energy
exploration and development, except for valid existing rights. Dam
construction would be prohibited. A 1/4 mile wide utility corridor
would be established along the Northwest Gas Pipeline.
Soil erosion potential would be reduced because of limitations on
livestock use, the improvement in vegetation cover, and lack of other
major soil disturbance activities such as mineral development.
Existing access and use of private and state inholdings would be
unaffected.
Wilderness designation would not significantly impact the
economic conditions of Malheur, Owyhee or Elko Counties.
No Wilderness/No Action' Alt.ernative
Under the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative, the WSAs would not
have their wilderness characteristics protected by a Congressional
wilderness designation. Instead, 287,000 acres within the WSAs would
be managed as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) of
199,000 acres and a bighorn sheep habitat management area (HMA) of
88,000 acres. The management objective of the ACEC is to protect
bighorn sheep habitat, scenic,quality, natural values and cultural
resources. The 1nanagement objective of the HMA is to protect bighorn
sheep habitat. Recreation use on 69,200 acres of canyonlands along
the Owyhee and South Fork Owyhee Rlver would be managed under the
Owyhee River Recreation Area Management Plan to preserve the four
resource values associated with the ACEC/HMA designation.
Though one of the principal objectives· of the ACEC/HMA is to
minimize human disturbance in bighorn sheep habitat, these desig­nations
would not prevent reductions in naturalness on the plateaus.
iii
The naturalness of the plateaus in the Idaho WSAs would be moderately
to significantly impacted by rangeland development projects (water
developments, brush control treatments and seedings) intended for the
benefit of livestock and wildlife. Increased forage utilization on
the WSA lands would reduce naturalness by giving the land a more
grazed appearance. Continued mineral and energy exploration could
lead to developments which would further reduce naturalness.
Increasing use of existing roads and ways combined with an overall
reduction in naturalness would result in a loss of primitive
recreation and solitude opportunities.on the plateaus.
River running and backpacking within the canyons (unless dams are
constructed) and hunting throughout the WSAs would remain the primary
recreation opportunities. Boating and backpacking use is expected to
reach 12,500 user days by the year 2002 while hunting should increase
to 2,900 user days. No roads or ways would be closed to motorized
recreation use.
Annual livestock use in affected allotments could increase by
83,273 AUMs (225,698 AUMs to 308,971 AUMs) in 20 years.
Increases in livestock use and continued motorized recreation
access within WSAs could slightly increase damage or loss of archaeo­logical
sites on the plateaus.
Increased forage utilization by livestock combined with rangeland
developments would also cause some loss of scenic quality.
The ecological condition of native plant communities would
improve with the implementation of grazing systems. However, seeding
of the plateaus to crested wheatgrass (a non-native species) could
cause widespread displacement of native plant communities. Soil
erosion potential would be reduced as vegetation cover improves on
both native vegetation and on seeded areas.
No lands would be closed to mineral and energy development,
however, stipulations would be imposed in the ACEC to protect bighorn
sheep habitat. Dam construction could occur in the Owyhee River
canyons.
Existing access and use of private and state inholdings would be
unaffected.
There would be no significant social or economic impacts.
Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative
Under the Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative, 87,000 acres would
be designated wilderness within the canyons of eight WSAs. About
198,800 acres of plateau and 2,800 acres of canyon would remain desig­nated
as a ACEC/HMA. Impacts would be similar to those described
under the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative except for the
following:
iv
1. Annual livestock use in affected allotments could increase by
83,213 AUMs in 20 years (225,698 AUMs to 308,911 AUMs).
2. Approximately 2.5 miles of roads and 3.5 miles of ways would be
closed to motorized recreation use. Recreation use would
increase as in the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative.
3. The canyons would be closed to mineral development and potential
dam construction.
Wildlife Wilderness Alternative
With the Wildlife Wilderness Alternative, 287,490 acres would be
designated as wilderness in a configuration similar to the existing
BLM ACEC/HMA designations. Impacts would· be similar to those of the
Proposed Action except an additional 86,670 acres would be open to
rangeland development, motorized recreation use, and potential energy
and mineral development. With the additional acreage excluded from
designation, the annual livestock use in affected allotments could
increase 55,356 AUMs in 20 years (225,698 AUMs to 281,054 AUMs).
There would be 15.8 miles of roads and 50.8 miles of ways closed
to motorized recreation use. Recreation use is projected to be the
same as in the Proposed Action.
All Wilderness Alternative
In the All Wilderness Alternative 436,047 acres would be desig­nated
as wilderness. Impacts would be similar to those in the
Proposed Action except 61,887 more acres would be designated. Of this
acreage, 64,107 acres could have their wilderness characteristics
compromised by the continued use of livestock management developments,
external influences from adjacent roads and rangeland developments,
and from potential unauthorized ORV use. Existing cherry stem roads
would not be closed to motorized recreation use. Though 104.3 miles
of ways would be closed, the continued use of cherry stem roads could
lead to unauthorized ORV use which would reduce naturalness on
surrounding wilderness lands. Use of the roads would also disrupt
solitude and primitive recreation opportunities. Because of continued
cherry stem road access, less hunting use is expected to be displaced.
Hunting use could increase to 2,600 user days while boating and hiking
could increase to 13,000 user days.
The annual livestock use in affected allotments could increase by
43,583 AUMs in 20 years (225,698 AUMs to 269,281 AUMs).
v
DRAFT
OWYHEE CANYONLANDS WILDERNESS EIS
Table of Contents
Pa_g_e No.
SumtARY •.••.••..•••.••••..•••••••..•••••..••.••••• , .•••••.•••.. i
CHAPTER I: PURPOSE AND NEED •.••.••..•••••••••.••..•.••.••••••. I-1
A. Introduction ......................................... . I-1
B. Purpose and Need •...................•................•
C. The BLM Planning Process .•...................•....•...
D. Planning Issues and Concerns .................•...•..••
Planning Criteria and Quality Standards •••••••••••••
Issues ............................................. .
E. Formulation of Alternatives .......................... .
F. Other Considerations ................................. .
Related EIS and Planning Recommendations ••••••••••••
Wilderness Study Report and Mineral Surveys •••••••••
CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ••••••••
A. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives •••••••
1. Proposed Action (All Manageable Wilderness
Alternative) ................................... .
2. No Wilderness/No Action Alternative ••••••••••••••
3. Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative ••.••••••••••••
4. Wildlife Wilderness Alternative ••••••••••••••••••
5. All Wilderness Alternative •••••••••••••••••••••••
B. Other Alternatives Considered ..•......•....•...•..•..•
c. Relationship of Alternatives to National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Goals •••••••••••••••
D. Summary of Environmental Consequences ...........•..•..
CHAPTER III: DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ••••••••••••••
A. Wilderness Character ................................. .
1. Wilderness Characteristics ....•..•......•........
a. Naturalness ......................... • • .. • • • •
I-1
I-2
I-2
I-2
I-4
I-6
I-8
I-8
I-9
II-1
II-1
II-1
II-6
II-9
II-10
II-11
II-12
II-12
II-13
III-1
III-1
III-1
III-1
b. Soli tude Opportunities ..................... . III-2
vi
c. Primitive Recreation Opportunities ••••••••••
d. External Influences ........................ .
2. Supplemental Wilderness Values •••••••••••••••••••
a. Scenic Values .............................. .
b. Vegetation (Ecological & Scientific) Values •
c. Wildlife Values .......... ~ ................. .
d. Cultural Values ............................ .
Page No.
III-3
III-4
III-5
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-9
B. Recreation ............................................ III-9
C. Livestock Grazing ..................................... III-11
D. Water •••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••• III-14
E. Soils •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •• III-15
F. Lands •••••••••••• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 • III-15
G. Geology; Minerals and Energy •••••••••••••.•••••••••••• III-16
H. Economics ............................................. III-20
CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ••••• 0 ••••••••• 0 0 •••••••
A. Wilderness Character ................................. .
1. Wilderness Characteristics ••••••••••••••.••••••••
2. Supplemental Values ............................. .
a. Scenic Values .............................. .
b. Vegetation Values .......................... .
c. Wildlife Values ............................ .
d. Cultural Values ............................ .
B. Recreation ............................................ .
IV-1
IV-1
IV-1
IV-6
IV-6
IV-7
IV-8
IV-9
IV-10
C. Livestock Grazing ..................................... IV-14
D. Water .................................................. IV-19
E. Soils .................................................. IV-19
F. Lands .................................................... IV-21
G. Minerals and Energy ................................... IV-21
H. Economics ............................................. IV-21
I. Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity •• f ••••••• IV-23
J. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment
of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-23
vii
Page No.
CHAPTER V: OTHER DATA FOR ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION •••••••••• V-1
A. Criterion #1: Evaluation of Wilderness Values •••••••• V-1
B· Criterion 112: Manageability .......................... v-7
c. Quality Standards ..................................... V-8
CHAPTER VI: CPOAORRTDICINIPAATTIOIONN, C•O•N••SI•S•T•E•N•C•Y•,• •A•N•D• •P•U•B•L••IC• •••••••••••••• VI-1
A. Coordination and Consultation ••••••••••••••••••••••••• VI-1
B· Consistency ........................................... VI-1
c. Public Participation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• VI-1
D. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom
Draft was Sent •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• VI-3
LIST OF PRINCIPAL PREPARERS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P-1
GLOSSARY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• G-1
REFERENCES
..................................................... R-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A- Summary of Wilderness Character of WSAs ••••••• A-1
Appendix B - ProPpoorsteiodn P orof jeAcftf eDcteevde loAplmloetnmtse nwtsi th•i•n• •W••SA• ••••••• B-1
Appendix C - Maximum Livestock Use Foregone With Wilder­ness
Designation by Affected Allotment •••••• C-1
INDEX •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• X-1
viii
Page No.
List of Maps
Map 1 - General Location Map
Map 2 - Proposed Action (All Manageable Wilderness
Alternative)
Map 3 - No Wilderness/No Action Alternative
Map 4 - Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative
Map 5 - Wildlife Wilderness Alternative
Map 6 - All Wilderness Alternative
Map 7 - Adjoining Canyonlands
Map 8 - Ecosystem 3130-49
Map 9 - MSA
Map 10 - Geographic Distribution
The general location map is located on the page
preceeding the summary (page i). All other maps are
located at the enq of the document.
List of Tables
Table I-1
Table Il-l
Table II-2
Table II-3
Table II-4
Table II-5
Table II-6
Table II-7
Table III-1
Table III-2
Table III-3
Table III-4
- WSAs Within the Owyhee Canyonlands
Wilderness EIS ............................. I-1
- Proposed Action - Acres Recommended
Suitable/Nonsuitable as Wilderness ••••••••• Il-l
-Proposed Project Developments by WSA ••••••••• II-4
- No Wilderness/No Action Alternative -
Acres Recommended as Nonsuitable ••••••••••• II-7
- Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative - Acres
Recommended Suitable/Nonsuitable as
Wilderness .. •· ...... ~ ......... .- ........ •·· .. II:-10
- Wildlife Wilderness Alternative - Acres
Recommended Suitable/Nonsuitable as
Wilderness ................................. II-11
- All Wilderness Alternative - Acres
Recommended Suitable as Wilderness ••••••••• II-12
-Comparative Impact Summary ••••••••••••••••••• II-14
- Owyhee River Carrying Capacities Within WSAs • III-11
-Affected Grazing Allotments •••••••••••••••••• III-12
-Land Ownership Within WSAs ••••••••••••••••••• III-15
- Classification of Lands Around the Owyhee
River, Owyhee County, Idaho for GEM
Resource Potential (TERRADATA) •••••••••••••• III-17
Table III-5 -Classification of Lands Within the Owyhee
River Canyon WSA OR-3-195, Malheur County,
Oregon for GEM Resource Potential •••••••••• III-18
Table III-6- Existing Oil and Gas Leases •••••••••••••••••• III-19
Table IV-1 - Estimated Percentages of Each WSA Which
Could Show Reductions in Wilderness
Characteristics ............................ IV-6
Table IV-2 -Recreation- Summary Table ••••••••••••••••••• IV-13
Table IV-3 - Current and 20-Year Livestock Use Within
Affected Allotments •••••••••••••••••••••••• IV-15
ix
"
II
Page No.
Table IV-4 - Current and 20-Year Livestock Use Within
WSA Boundaries .••..••.......••....••..•••.. IV-17
Table IV-5
Table V-1
Table V-2
Table V-3
Table V-4
Table VI-1
- Maximum Livestock Use Foregone With
Wilderness Designation by WSA •••••••••••••• IV-18
-Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem Representation •••• V-4
-Proximity of Wilderness to Boise, Idaho •••••• V-5
- Existing or Potential Wilderness Areas in
Oregon, Idaho and Nevada ••••••••••••••••••• V-6
- Manageabiity Adjustments for WSAs •••••••••••• V-9
-Public Participation in EIS Scoping Process •• VI-1
X
I H!l~dYH~
~
0
rt
0
o'
'<
>-l
""" :<::
".....
OQ
.0. ..
""
~-~~.~--~-
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
mandates BLM to manage the public lands and their resources under the
principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Wilderness values
are identified as part of the spectrum of multiple land use values to
be considered in BLM inventory, planning, and management. Section
603 of FLPMA requires a wilderness review of BLM roadless areas of
5,000 or more acres and roadless islands. The BLM inventory process
identified wilderness study areas which have the mandatory wilderness
characteristics (size; naturalness; solitude and/or primitive
recreation opportunities). Suitable or nonsuitable wilderness recom­mendations
for each WSA will be presented to the President by the
Secretary of the Interior. The President will then make recommen­dations
to Congress. Areas can be designated wilderness only by an
act of Congress.
C. THE BLM PLANNNING PROCESS
Recommendations concerning the suitability or nonsuitability of
WSAs for wilderness designation were developed through BLM's planning
system (43 CFR part 1600). After the WSAs were identified in the
wilderness inventory, wilderness recommendations were included in
management framework plans (MFPs) prepared in the Vale and Boise
Districts of Oregon and Idaho •. These recommendations were developed
using the requirements of the BLM Wilderness Study Policy. The
proposed wilderness recommendations of the Vale District Southern
Malheur, and Boise District Owyhee and Bruneau Resource Area MFPs
resolved conflicts among preliminary wilderness recommendations and
other resource recommendations through public participation, and
through consultation and coordination with adjacent BLM Districts and
other agencies.
The Elko District in Nevada completed the Tuscarora Planning
Unit MFP covering the affected lands in 1973 prior to the passage of
FLPMA. This MFP, therefore, contains no wilderness recommendations.
The Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness EIS contains the necessary environ­mental
analysis and informational requirements of the BLM Wilderness
Study Policy to amend the Tuscarora MFP to include wilderness
recommendations.
D. PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness EIS addresses significant
environmental issues and concerns relating to wilderness designation
for the Owyhee River WSAs. It also evaluates planning criteria and
quality standards identified in the BLM Wilderness Study Policy.
1. Planning Criteria and Quality Standards
The Study Policy's planning criteria and quality standards
are an expression of national issues and concerns over wilder­ness
designation. They are used to determine if wilderness
designation is the most appropriate management option for the
affected lands. Other designations which could provide
protection of wilderness characteristics and supplemental
wilderness values include a Congressionally designated wild
I-2
' I I
I • I
I
I·
I
river, and/or a administratively designated area of critical
environmental concern (ACEC) and bighorn sheep habitat manage­ment
area (HMA). The planning criteria and quality standards
evaluated in Chapter V include:
Criterion No. 1: Evaluation of Wilderness Values
Consider the extent to which each of the following
components contribute to the overall value of an area for
wilderness purposes.
a. Mandatory Wilderness Characteristics: The quality of the
area's size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for
solitude or primitive recreation.
b. Special Features: The presence or absence, and quality of
the optional wilderness characteristics - ecological,
geological, other features of scientific, educational,
scenic, or historical value.
c. Multiple Resource Benefits: The benefits to other multiple
resource values and uses which only wilderness designation
of the area could ensure.
d. Diversity in the National Wilderness Preservation System:
Consider the extent to which wilderness designation of the
area under study would contribute to expanding the
diversity of the National Wilderness Preservation System
from the standpoint of each of the factors listed below.
1) Expanding the diversity of natural systems and
features as represented by ecosystems and landforms.
2) Assessing the opportunities for solitude or primitive
recreation within a day's driving time (5 hours) of
major population centers.
3) Balancing the geographic distribution of wilderness
areas.
The analysis should consider federal and state lands
designated as wilderness, areas officially recommended for
wilderness, and other federal and state lands under
wilderness study.
Criterion No. 2: Manageability
The area must be capable of being effectively managed
to preserve its wilderness character, including both its
wilderness characteristics and its multiple resource
values. The phase "effectively managed" means that an area
can be managed to maintain the public benefits which
justified wilderness designation. A wilderness must be
capable of being managed over the long-term to preserve its
wilderness character, both to maintain the quality of its
I-3
-----------.. ---·
2.
''
wilderness characteristics and to ensure continuation of
its uses and mutliple use benefits.
Quality Standards
Standard No. 1, Energy and Mineral Resource Values:
Recommendations as to an area's suitability or non­suitability
for wilderness designation will reflect a
thorough consideration of any identified or potential
energy and mineral resource values.
Standard No. 2, Impacts on Other Resources:
the extent to which other resource values or uses
area would be foregone or adversely affected as a
wilderness designation.
Consider
of the
result of
Standard No. 3, Impact of Nondesignation on Wilderness
Values: Consider the alternative use of land under study
if the area is not designated as wilderness, and the extent
to which the wilderness values of the area would be fore­gone
or adversely affected as a result of this use.
Standard No. 4, Public Comment: The BLM's wilderness
study process will consider comments received from
interested and affected publics at all levels - state,
local, regional, and national. Wilderness recommendations
will not be based on a vote-counting majority rule system.
The BLM will develop its recommendations 'by considering
public comment in conjunction with a full analysis of a
WSA's multiple resources, and its social and economic
values and uses.
Standard No. 5, Local Social and Economic Effects:
The BLM will give special attention to any significant
social and economic effects, as identified through the
wilderness study process, which wilderness designation of
the area would have on local areas.
S~ahdard No. 6, Consistency with Other Plans: The BLM
will consider and document the extent to which the
recommendation is consistent with officially approved and
adopted resource-related plans of other federal agencies,
state and local governments, and Indian tribes.
Issues
To determine the scope of environmental issues, public
comment was solicited from the publics in Oregon, Idaho, Nevada,
Washington, California and other states. In December, 1982,
over 1800 individuals, organizations and government represen­tatives
were contacted to determine their 'interest in the Owyhee
Canyonlands Wilderness study. About 700 individuals, organi­zations
and government agencies requested detailed scoping
information. As a result of the mailings, 211 comments were
received.
I-4
The scoping process identified the following significant
issues and management concerns:
ISSUES
a. Livestock Management
l) The impact of wilderness designation on livestock
grazing operations, including:
a) Levels of grazing use allowed.
b) The amount of project development or land treat­ment
allowed.
c) The affect of limiting vehicle use on the
ranchers' ability to manage their operations.
b. Recreation
1) The impact of wilderness designation on public access
and recreation use of the Owyhee River and the
surrounding plateaus.
c. Wildlife
1) The impact of wilderness vs. nonwilderness designation
on wildlife habitat and population levels.
2) The impact of increased recreational use on bighorn
sheep, Canada geese and other wildlife species.
d. Vegetation
1) The impact of wilderness designation on ecological
condition and endangered, threatened, or sensitive
plant species.
e. Watershed
1) The impacts of wilderness designation on watershed
values including: erosion, streambank stability and
water quality.
2) The impact of wilderness designation on dam proposals
on the Owyhee River.
f. Minerals and Energy
1) The impact of wilderness designation on mineral and
energy exploration and development.
2) The impact of wilderness designation on the potential
for future utility corridors.
I-5
·----··-·-----
I
II
g. Economics
1) The economic impact to livestock operators and the
local community resulting from changes in livestock
use levels or livestock management practices.
2) The economic impact to local communities resulting
from changes in recreational use.
h. Protection of Wilderness Values
1) The impact of wilderness or nonwilderness designation
on primitive recreation, ecological, scenic and
cultural values.
MANAGEMENT CONCERNS
a. Non-federal Inholdings
1) The impact of wilderness designation on the access and
use of intermingled private and state lands.
There were numerous comments during the scoping process that
were directed toward specific management concerns. Where approp­riate,
these suggestions were incorporated into the descriptions of
the Proposed Action or alternatives. Several comments, however, were
not incorporated because of conflicts with existing laws and regula­tions
or because they were not related to the wilderness issue. The
following is a list of comments not within the scope of the EIS:
1. Eliminate grazing.
2. Consider the potential the lands have to return to a pre­livestock
grazing condition.
3. Shift grazing to other areas.
4. Maintain minimum flows in the Owyhee River.
5. The spiritual impacts of wilderness.
6. Whether or not land negotiations with state an4 private property
owners would be s~ccessful.
7. Invertebrate populations and species.
E. FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The BLM Wilderness Study Policy calls for the formulation and
evaluation of alternatives ranging from resource protection to
resource production. The alternatives assessed in this EIS include:
(1) a no wildernness/no action alternative; (2) an all wilderness
alternative; and (3) three partial wilderness alternatives.
I-6
The No Wilderness/No Action Alternative advocates a continuation
of present resource management and recommends the lands as non­suitable
for wilderness designation.
The All Wilderness Alternative represents the maximum possible
acreage that could be suitable for wilderness designation and
includes the entire acreage of all eight WSAs.
The partial wilderness alternatives make suitable or non­suitable
recommendations ranging between the All Wilderness and No
Wilderness/No Action Alternatives. The partial wilderness alter­natives
were developed based upon:
1. the issues of concern to the public and land managers,
2. the ability to manage the WSAs as wilderness,
3. the relative wilderness values of the WSAs, and
4. the degree of conflict between competing resource values.
The All Manageable Wilderness Alternative optimizes wilderness
resource values of those lands manageable as wilderness. WSA lands
were eliminated from the wilderness recommendation because of 1)
existing resource developments which impact naturalness and manage­ment
for solitude or primitive recreation opportunities, 2) terrain
and vegetation features which could not be realistically protected
from off-road vehicle use, 3) inescapeable external influences
immediately adjacent to the WSA, or 4) land configuration problems
resulting from private inholdings. Specific rationales for areas
recommended as nonsuitable are provided in the manageability section
of Chapter v.
Small acreages of non-WSA lands are recommended for inclusion in
the wilderness alternatives to improve or enhance management if 1)
the area is public land and was part of the original roadless inven­tory
unit, and the area has topographic features which are more
definable and protectable than those within the WSA, or 2) the
addition of the area would enhance the protection of significant high
quality wilderness characteristics or supplemental values. The BLM
wilderness study guidance recognizes the need for small expansions in
the wilderness area recommendations outside WSA boundaries to improve
wilderness management. Such expansions are appropriate because the
policy prohibits the establishment of buffer zones of nonwilderness
land around designated wilderness areas. Wilderness area should be
as self-protecting as possible and include all lands necessary for
the protection of wilderness values.
The Wildlife Wilderness Alternative was developed to lessen or
mitigate conflicts between wilderness management and the use of land
treatments and other rangeland developments for the benefit of live­stock
grazing, and to address public concerns over the ·long-term
protection of habitat for expanding bighorn sheep populations and
other wildlife species. This alternative also eliminates lands which
are considered to be unmanageable for the protection of wilderness
characteristics, and calls for small additions of public land outside
the WSAs to improve wilderness management.
I-7
The Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative was developed to
eliminate conflicts associated with the use of motorized vehicles for
recreation, the potential development of mineral and energy
resources, and the use of land treatments and structural rangeland
developments to benefit livestock grazing. It also addresses a
perception held by some that wilderness characteristics worthy of
protection lie only within the canyons.
Many of the suggestions for modifying the preliminary alter­natives
presented during the scoping process have been incorporated
into the alternatives selected for analysis. The following major
items have been included in the Proposed Action or alternatives.
1. The All Manageable Wilderness Alternative (Proposed Action) was
expanded to include lands in WSA OR-3-195 (ID-16-48B) that were
recommended as suitable for wilderness in Alternative C of the
Draft Malheur Land Use Plan (Malheur MFP) which emphasized
protection of natural values.
2. The No Action and No Wilderness Alternatives were combined into
one alternative.
3. The Bighorn Sheep Alternative was renamed the Wildlife Wilder­ness
Alternative and expanded to include areas within WSAs
ID-16-52 and ID-16-48C.
F. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1. Related EIS and Planning Recommendations
In March, 1979, the National Park Service (NPS) completed
the Owyhee River Wild and Scenic River Study Final Report -
Environmental Statement which proposed the main stem of the
Owyhee River for designation as a "wild" river under the
authority of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Sub­sequently,
both the BLM in Oregon and Idaho have made MFP recom­mendations
for considering the Owyhee River and South Fork
Owyhee River under the Act: No similar recommendation has yet
been made in Nevada. Because we have no indication that it is
going to be designated a wild river in ~he near future, the
impact analysis for the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness EIS is
based on what would occur without wild or scenic river
designation.
· An Oregon Wilderness EIS, scheduled for completion in 1984,
will contain an analysis for several other WSAs in Oregon (WSAs
OR-3-59, OR-3-110 and OR-3-173) associated with the Owyhee
River and its tributary canyons. The proposed action and alter­natives
presenteq in the Oregon Wi·lderness EIS are being coor­dinated
with those of the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness EIS.
The location of the adjoining Oregon WSAs is shown on Map 7.
I-8
'•
2. Wilderness Study Report and Mineral Surveys
The final Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness EIS and the Owyhee
Canyonlands Wilderness Study Report will be forwarded to the
Secretary of the Interior. Areas approved as suitable for
wilderness designation by the Secretary will receive mineral
surveys by the Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines. The three
documents will be submitted to the President who will make a
recommendation to Congress.
I-9
I I I:I:I.LdYH:)
118'7-91-GI VSM.
Ji' ·1--e·
~~·
~
CHAPTER II
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE
PROPOSED ACTION
A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
1. Proposed Action (All Manageable Wilderness Alternative): Map 2
The Proposed Action recommends that 374,160 acres of public
land encompassing portions of eight WSAs are suitable for desig­nation
as the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness. It further recom­mends
that 64,467 acres are nonsuitable for designation.
TABLE II-1
PROPOSED ACTION
ACRES RECOMMENDED SUITABLEINONSUITABLE AS WILDERNESS (BLM ACRES)
Nonsuitable Suitable as
WSA as Wilderness Wilderness
OREGON IDAHO NEVADA TOTAL OREGON IDAHO NEVADA
OR-3-195 43,765 0 -- 43,765 138,395 33,700 --
(ID-16-48B)
ID-16-48C -- 0 -- 0 --- 24' 600 --
ID-16-49A -- 3,440 -- 3,440 --- 67,400 --
ID-16-49D -- 440 -- 440 --- 9,550 --
ID-111-49E -- 80 -- 80 --- 31,880 --
ID-16-52 -- 1,980 -- 1,980 --- 11' 170 --
ID--16-53 -- 3, 7 50 2,662 6,412 --- 38,760 5,180
(NV-010-
103A)
NV-010-106 -- -- 8,350 8,350 --- --- 13' 525
BLM TOTAL ----- -- 43,765 9,690 11,012 64,467 138,395 217,060 18,705
.!_/ Includes 1,480 acres of land outside the WSA boundary.
~I Includes 680 acres of land outside the WSA boundary.
~I Incluces 420 acres of land outside the WSA boundary.
TOTAL
172 ,095.!. I
24,600
67 ,400~ I
9,550
31 ,880~ I
11,170
43,940
13,525
374,160
The Proposed Action constitutes BLM's preferred alternative.
The wilderness acreage would include all WSA lands which are
manageable to protect wilderness values. The area would be
managed in accordance with the BLM Wilderness Management Policy
to preserve its wilderness character. In addition to providing a
natural setting for primitive recreational experiences,
Il-l
I
'I
~
- .. ..........,.
management actions would also provide social and managerial
settings consistent with maintaining outstanding opportunities
for primitive recreation and solitude. Furthermore, the area
would be managed to protect supplemental wilderness values.
Grazing would continue and would be managed in accordance with
allotment management plans. This proposed wilderness would be
managed in conjunction with any wilderness designated within
adjoining WSAs OR-3-59, OR-3-110 and OR-3-173 in Oregon (Map 7).
To facilitate management following wilderness designation,
negotiations would be initiated with state land agencies and
private property owners to obtain easements, develop cooperative
management agreements, or to exchange lands. Cherry stem roads
and some boundary roads between WSAs would be closed to public
motorized use to enhance the wilderness character of the WSA
complex as a whole.
The management objectives for the wilderness area would be
as follows:
Resource Management
a. Manage the area to protect its primitive environment. Main­tain
a natural setting which provides outstanding oppor­tunities
for solitude and for primitive and unconfined
recreation activities. The area would be managed as a
visual resource management (VRM) area of Class I.
b. Maintain the free-flowing condition of the Owyhee and South
Fork Owyhee River. Water quality would be maintained in
accordance with state and federal water quality standards.
Provide for the long-term protection of soils and the
watershed with particular emphasis on stream bank
stabilization.
c. Manage the area to protect the habitats for fish and wild­life
species. Cooperate with the Oregon, Idaho and Nevada
wildlife agencies in protecting and restoring habitats for
fish and wildlife.
Wildlife management would strive to enhance existing
wildlife habitats and encourage population growth by:
1) preserving the natural habitat for wildlife species.
2) allocating sufficient forage to wildlife populations
using the plateaus. Livestock use levels would be
adjusted, if necessary, to provide adequate forage for
bighorn population goals.
3) giving management priority to wildlife and fisheries
within the canyonlands.
4) maintaining separation of use between cattle and big­horn
sheep by controlling the location of new livestock
water sources.
II-2
l ~·
' f
;:'
•I;
:J
,·
5)
6)
managing range resources for good ecological condition,
including a prescribed burning program on the plateaus
to restore wildlife habitat. Allow only natural
(native plant) revegetation of treated areas.
allowing for research studies of bighorn sheep •
Trapping and transplanting by helicopter as required by
state wildlife management agencies may be permitted by
the State Director if no other feasible alternative
exists.
d. Manage the area to protect significant cultural resource
sites and associated values. Develop a cultural resource
management plan to stabilize and preserve significant
historic and pre-historic sites to enhance the wilderness
resource, and to allow for scientific research and excava­tion.
Cooperate with State Historic Preservation Offices
and county historical societies to protect and stabilize
resources on state and private lands.
e. Manage livestock use in a manner which would not adversely
affect the natural, wildlife, recreational and cultural
values. Develop allotment management plans (AMPs) which
encourage the removal of livestock from the canyons or
provide for improved management within the canyons, and
which provide for continued grazing on the plateaus through:
1) the maintenance of existing range improvements.
2) the development of new range improvements on the
plateaus to restore good ecological condition of plant
communities, providing they do not impair the natural­ness
of the wilderness nor impact wildlife populations.
These projects are listed by WSA on Table II-2.
Proposed project development by grazing allotment are
listed in Appendix B.
3) the controlled use of motorized vehicles for salting
and facility maintenance when no other reasonable
alternative exists.
f. Designation as wilderness would prohibit further mineral
entry and other forms of land entry or disposition, subject
to valid existing rights.
g. Operations on any valid mineral rights established prior to
designation, or oil and gas leases, would be accomplished
under regulations designed to prevent impairment of
wilderness values.
Recreation Management
a. Manage recreation use in keeping with the capacity of the
wilderness to sustain a high quality primitive experience.
II-3
~j~_
..... .....
..I. .
TABlE II-2
PROOOSED ERUJECr IEVELOPME:NJ.'S BY WSA
AL'IERNATIVES
All M3nageable Wilderness No Wilderness/No Action Canyonlands Wilderness Wildlife Wilderness
WSA Sagebrush lhter Sagebrush Water Sagebrush lhter Sagebrush lhter
Control Develop- Fences Control Develop- Fences Control Develop- Fences Control Develop- Fences
(Acres)l/ ment 2/ (miles) (Acres) ment 2/ (miles) (Acres) ment 2/ (miles) (Acres)l/ ment 2/ (miles)
<mFmN
3-195 1,900 4 9 2,900 9
(1~8B)
9 2,900 9 10.5 2,500 4 9
IrWD
3-195 1,800 3 0 7,200 3
(1~8B)
0 7,200 3 0 1,800 3 0
16-48C 0 3 2 9,900 3 2 9,900 3 2 6,000 3 2
16-49A 2,200 4 3 5,400 4 3 5,400 4 3 2,300 4 3
16-490 300 0 0 700 0 0 700 0 0 300 0 0
16-52 400 0 0 1,700 0 0 1,700 0 0 700 0 0
16-53 11,200 0 0 27,900 0 0 27,900 0 0 15,000 0 0
NEVADA 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 -0 -0 - 0 -0 -0
'lUTAL 17,800 14 14 55,700 19 14 55,700 19 15.5 28,600 14 14
1,..___ -'---- ~----- -- - -- ---
11 Brush control within the wilderness boundaries t.uuld be limited to prescribed ~ to benefit wilderness values.
Y Number of spr~ ani reservoir developoonts.
All Wilderness
Sagebrush lhter
Control Develop- Fences
(Acres)1/ ment 2/ (miles)
0 4 9
1,800 3 0
0 3 2
1,400 4 3
100 0 0
400 0 0
10,100 0 0
I
-0 - - 0 0 I
I
13,800 14 14
I
I
I
Determine use levels,~h~ch would provide a primitive
recreational exper~ence,with a high degree of solitude, and
would cause minimal adverse impacts to vegetation, cultural,
and wildlife resources.
b. Provide only the minimally necessary pub!ic use facilities
and road access to re. tain ' the areas' primitive character.
Prov~de. for ~ontinued public road access. to the .river or
private inho~dings at the locations snown below. Roads
would be. maintained at .their present level o~ construction,
except in WSA NV-010-106 as described below. Acquire access
easements across private land where needed.
1) Owyhee River:
a) Garat Crossing (Pipeline Crossing, Idaho) between
WSAs ID-16-49D and 16-52.
b) Battle Creek confluence between WSAs ID-16-49A,
16-49D and lll-49E.
c) Crutcher's Crossing between WSAs OR-3-195
(ID-16-48B) and ID-16-49A.
d) Three Forks adjacent to WSA OR-3-195 (ID-16-48B).
2) South Fork Owyhee River
a) Pipeline Crossing, Nevada, between WSAs ID-16-53
(NV-010-103A) and NV-010-106.
b) 45 aanch between WSAs OR-3-195 (ID-16-48B),
ID-16-48C and ID-16-53 (NV-010-103A).
c) Coyote Hole in WSA ID-16-53 (NV-010-103A).
d) Following wilderness designation, and the release
of nonsuitable WSA lands from the Wilderness
Inter-im Management Policy, consider upgrading the
road access into WSA NV-010-106 at Twelve Mile.
The upgraded road would provide public access to
the river and serve as part of the southern
boundary of the wilderness area. Construction
standards should not exceed those at other major
Owyhee River access points.
All other vehicle routes to the river or across
plateaus within the wilderness area would be closed to
general public use.
c. Monitor and evaluate visitor and resource management
programs to identify needed plan modifications.
d. Manage commercial river use through the issua~ce of special
recreation use permits. Establish a mandatory permit system
for noncommercial users only when monitoring tndicates daily
or seasonal use capacities a·re beirig reached and no other
management options are effective in controlling use.
e. Develop an informational program to aid visitor and resource
management. The program should focus on (1) visitor safety;
II-5
.,
II
II
1
.!
•'
' . ~
1111
(2) visitor awareness of natural and cultural resources; (3)
environmentally acceptable visitor behavior to protect
natural and cultural resources.
Of the 64,467 acres of nonsuitable land, 63,267 acres of
plateau would be managed principally for livestock grazing and
other resource values in accordance with the Southern Malheur,
Owyhee and Bruneau Resource Area MFPs, and the Tuscarora Planning
Unit (Elko Resource Area) MFP. Management would include im­proving
livestock forage production through vegetation treatments
and structural range improvements. The area would be managed for
VRM Class III and IV. The area would be open for general
motorized recreation use. Potential mineral and energy develop­ment
would be allowed.
The remaining 1,200 acres of nonsuitable lands in the
canyons of the South Fork Owyhee River in Nevada would continue
to be managed under the ACEC designation (including the Owyhee
River Recreation Area Management Plan) to protect wild river
values. The area would be managed for VRM Class II.
A 1/4 mile wide utility corridor along the Northwest (El
Paso) Gas Pipeline would be established for underground use only.
The corridor would lie in Idaho and Nevada between WSAs ID-16-49D
and lp-52, and between ID-16-53 (NV-010-103A) and NV-010-106.
2. No Wilderness/No Action Alternative: Map 3
Under the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative, 436,047 acres
of public land in the eight WSAs are recommended as nonsuitable
for wilderness designation. This alternative addresses the
management actions that would occur if none of the WSAs were
designated as wilderness.
Without wilderness designation, 287,000 acres of public land
within the WSAs would be managed as an area of critical environ­mental
concern (ACEC) and a bighorn sheep habitat management area
(HMA) as shown on Map 3. The Bruneau and Owyhee Land Use Plans
established a 175,000 acre ACEC within portions of the Idaho
WSAs, and the Southern Malheur Land Use Plan established a 17,600
acre ACEC within portions of WSA OR-3-195. The Elko District
would establish a 6,400 acre ACEC within portions of the Nevada
WSAs following completion of the Elko Land Use Plan Amendment.
Nevada would have ACEC management objectives consistent with
those of Idaho. The three state total for the ACEC is 199,000
acres. The ACEC includes the main canyons of the Owyhee River
and South Fork Owyhee River in Oregon, Idaho and Nevada. It also
includes the three major tributary canyons and surrounding
plateau lands of the Owyhee River and South Fork OWyhee River in
Idaho and Nevada which are currently being used for bighorn sheep
habitat or potentially favorable for use as habitat.
The HMA totals 88,000 acres and includes two major tributary
canyons and surrounding plateaus of the Owyhee River in Oregon
which are potentially favorable for use as habitat by bighorn
sheep.
II-6
---------------
The nonsuitable acreage recommendations for each of the
eight WSAs are shown below:
TABLE II-3
NO WILDERNESS/NO AC~ION ALTERNATIVE
ACRES RECOMMENDED AS NONSUITABLE (BLM ACRES)
Nonsuitable
WSA as Wilderness
OREGON IDAHO NEVADA TOTAL
OR-3-195 180,680 33,700 -- 214,380
(ID-16-48B)
ID-16-48C -- 24,600 -- 24,600
ID-16-49A -- 70,160 -- 70,160
ID-16-49D -- 9, 990 -- 9,990
ID-111-49E -- 31,540 -- 31,540
ID-16-52 -- 13,150 -- 13,150
ID-16-53 -- 42,510 7,842 50,352
(NV-010-103A)
NV-010-106 -- -- 21,8.75 21,875
BLM TOTAL 180,680 225,650 29,717 436,047
Of the 287,000 acres in the ACEC/HMA, 88,200 acres lie
within canyons and 198,800 acres cover plateaus.
The Idaho portion of the ACEC was established to protect
wildlife (bighorn sheep), natural and scenic values associated
with the Owyhee Canyonlands. Special management requirements
include the following:
a. Ma,nage recreation use on the Owyhee River and South Fork
Owyhee River in accordance with the Owyhee River Recreation
Area Management Plan (1983). Under this plan, recreation
management would strive to maintain the wild and primitive
character of the canyons, and protect opportunities for high
quality primitive recreation experiences. Adverse rec­reation
impacts on natural, wildlife and cultural values
would.be minimized.
b. Prevent activities or developments which would impair the
scenic quality of the area. The area would be managed as a
visual resource management (VRM) Class II area.
c. Allow motorized vehicle use only on designated roads and
II-7
I , I
L
I I
!
II I
I
I I
trails. All existing roads and ways would remain open for
general public use.
d. ~nagement priority for the canyons would be for wildlife.
Protection would also be given to natural, scenic and
cultural values. Where necessary to prevent livestock
access to canyons, livestock management (ie. salting) or
fencing would be provided in accordance with allotment
management plans.
e. Livestock management would include the following:
1) Develop allotment management plans to maintain or
improve the vegetation to at least a good range condi­tion
class. Develop livestock water facilities and
fences. Use prescribed burning and other land treat­ment
methods on the plateaus to increase forage
production for both bighorns and livestock. Treated
areas could be seeded to non-native species such as
crested wheatgrass.
2) Maintain a separation of use between cattle and
bighorns by not developing livestock water sources
within bighorn habitat unless the potential adverse
impacts to bighorn could be .avoided or mitigated.
3) Prohibit conversion of cattle use to domestic sheep use
unless the use would not be within one mile of bighorn
habitat and a separation of use could reasonably be
maintained by physical barriers such as fences and
canyons.
4) Adjust livestock use levels, if necessary, to provide
adequate forage for bighorn population goals.
f. Retain public lands within the ACEC.
g. Support the public acquisition of private lands and the
exchange of state lands within the ACEC.
h. Maintain the current low level of human disturbance in the
ACEC by avoiding the construction or upgrading of any roads
that would increase human use fn bighorn habitat.
i. Research, trapping and transplanting of bighorn sheep by
helicopter or vehicle as required by state wildlife manage­ment
agencies would be allowed.
j. Allow oil and gas exploration with stipulations for no
surface occupancy within bighorn sheep habitat.
The Oregon portion of the ACEC was established to protect
natural, scenic and cultural values for the OWyhee River Canyon.
Special management requirements identified include those listed
II-8
.'I,
below. These management requirements have been incorporated into
the Owyhee River Management Plan.
a. Close the area to ORV use.
b. Erect barriers and signs to defer ORV use and protect the
fragile environment.
c. Continue river patrols during the spring boating season to
monitor and prevent overuse which may damage sensitive
values.
d. Conduct studies of river carrying capacity and then regulate
river use to prevent damage to sensitive plant, fish and
wildlife habitats.
The principal objective of the Oregon HMA would be to
protect the natural conditions of potential bighorn sheep
habitat. Motorized vehicle use would be limited to existing
roads and trails. The area would be managed for VRM Class II.
Livestock forage production and utilization would continue.
Ther-e are 149,047 acres ·of WSA land which would not be iden­tified
for any special BLM administrative designation. They
would be managed principally for livestock grazing and other
resource values in accordance with the Southern Malheur, Owyhee
and Bruneau Resource Area MFPs, and the Tuscarora Planning Unit
(Elko Resource Area) MFP. Management would include vegetation
land treatments and structural range improvements aimed at
improving livestock forage production (Table II-2). The area
would be managed for VRM Class III and IV. The area would be
open for general motorized vehicle use.
The entire 436,047 acres within the WSAs would be open for
mineral and energy exploration and development subject to the
ACEC stipulations to protect bighorn sheep habitat. A 1/4 mile
wide utility corridor would be established along the Northwest
(El Paso) Gas Pipeline.
3. Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative: Map 4
Under this alternative, 87,000 acres of public land within
the canyons of the e_ight WSAs are recommended as suitable for
wilderness designation. Management of the canyonlands would be
the same as that described under the Proposed Action.
There are 349,047 acres which would not be designated as
wilderness. Of this nonsuitable acreage, 1,200 acres of canyons
along the South Fork Owyhee River in Nevada and about 198,800
acres of the plateaus would be managed under the ACEC/HMA as
described in the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative. The
149,047 acres of plateau outside the ACEC/HMA would be managed
II-9
,,
f
I
I
I i
T
I'
principally for improved livestock forage production and other
resource uses.
The acreage by WSA for this alternative would be as follows:
TABLE II-4
CANYONLANDS WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE
ACRES RECOMMENDED SUITABLE/NONSUITABLE AS WILDERNESS (BLM ACRES)
Nonsui table Suitable as
WSA as Wilderness Wilderness
OREGON IDAHO NEVADA TOTAL OREGON IDAHO NEVADA TOTAL
OR-3-195 147,680 21,700 -- 169,380 33,000 12,000 -- 45,000
(ID-16-48B)
ID-16-48C --- 18,600 -- 18,600 -- 6,000 -- 6,000
ID-16-49A --- 52,160 -- 52,160 -- 18,000 -- 18,000
ID-16-49D --- 7,990 -- 7 '990 -- 2,000 -- 2,000
ID-111-49E --- 29,340 -- 29,340 -- 2,200 -- 2,200
ID-16-52 --- 9,950 -- 9,950 -- 3,200 -- 3,200
ID-16-53 --- 35,210 6,142 41,352 -- 7,300 1,700 9,000
(NV-010-103A)
NV-010-106 --- --- 20,275 20,275 -- -- 1,600 1,600
BLM TOTAL 147,680 174,950 26,417 349,047 33,000 so, 700 3,300 87,000
4. Wildlife Wilderness Alternative: Map 5
Under this alternative, 287,490 acres of public land are
recommended as suitable for wilderness designation to incorporate
portions of seven WSAs. The wilderness acreage would include
only-those canyonlands and plateaus which are manageable as
wilderness·and are existing or potential habitat for California
bighorn sheep populations. These lands also provide for the
habitat needs of other principal wildlife species associated with
the rhyolite canyonlands/sagebrush-bunchgrass ecosystem. Wilder­ness
ma~agement would be as described under the Proposed Action.
There are 151,137 acres which would not be designated as
wilderness. Of this nonsuitable acreage, 2,800 acres of canyon
along the South Fork Owyhee River in Nevada would be managed
under the ACEC as described in the No Wilderness/No Action
Alternative. About 148,337 acres of the plateaus would be
managed principally for improved livestock forage production and
other resource uses.
II-10
The acreage recommendation for each of the WSAs are shown
on the following table:
TABLE II-5
WILDLIFE .WILDERNESS AL~ERNATIVE
ACRES RECOMMENDED SUITABLE/NONSUITABLE AS WILDERNESS (BLM ACRES)
Nonsuitable Suitable as
WSA as Wilderness Wilderness
OREGON IDAHO NEVADA TOTAL OREGON IDAHO NEVADA TOTAL
OR-3-195 72,990 300 -- 73,290 109,170 33,400 -- 142,570
(ID-16-
48B)
ID-16-48C -- 16,140 --. 16,140 --- 8,460 -- 8,460
ID-16-49A -- 15,310 -- 15,310 --- 55,530 -- 55,530
ID-16-49D -- 440 -- 440 --- 9,550 -- 9,550
1/
2/
ID-lll-49E -- 5,580 -- 5,580 --- 26,380 -- 26,380 3/
ID-16-52 -- 3,220 -- 3,220 --- 9,930 -- 9,930
ID-16-53 -- 10,970 4,312 15,282 --- 31,540 3,530 35,070
(NV-010-
103A)
NV-010-106 -- -- 21,875 ' 21,875 --- --- 0 0
BLM TOTAL 72,990 51,960 26,187 151,137 109,170 174,790 3,530 287,490
!I Includes 1,480 acres of land outside the WsA boundaries.
~/Includes 680 acres of land outside the,WSA boundaries.
ll Includes 420 acres o,f land outside the WSA boundaries.
5. All Wilderness Alternative: Map 6
Under this alternative, all .436,047 acres of BLM land within
the eight WSAs are recommended as suitable for wilderness desig­nation•
Management would be the same as described under the
Proposed Action, except measures to enhance manageability (road
closures and land acquisition) would not occur, nor would the 1/4
mile wide utility corridor:along the Northwest.Gas Pipeline.
The acreage recommendations for each of the eight WSAs are
shown-on the following table:
II-11
1:
It
'
I
' 'l I.
.' I
f I
B.
c.
TABLE II-6
ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE
ACRES RECOMMENDED SUITABLE AS WILDERNESS (BLM ACRES)
Suitable· as·
WSA' Wilderness
OREGON IDAHO NEVADA TOTAL
OR-3-195 180,680 33,700 -- 214,380
(ID-16-48B)
ID-16-48C -- 24,600 -- 24,600
ID-16-49A -- 70,160 -- 70,160
ID-16-49D -- 9,990 -- 9,990
ID-lll-49E -- 31,540 -- 31,540
ID-16-52 -- 13,150 -- 13,150
ID-16-53 --
(NV-010-103A)
42,510 7,842 50,352
NV-010-106 -- -- 21,875 21,875
BLM TOTAL 180,680 225,650 29,717 436,047
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Other alternatives were suggested by the public during the
scoping process. These suggestions were carefully evaluated but were
not included for analysis in this EIS. Most of the suggestions were
to modify the configuration of wilderness bou~daries or to create
additional partial wilderness alternatives using only a portion of the
WSAs. Because the WSAs have wilderness characteristics of similar
quality, excluding some WSAs entirely was not considered viable. The
development of the three partial alternatives for the EIS was based on
resource issues, wilderness management problems, resource conflicts
and the quantity and/or quality of supplemental wilderness values.
RELATIONSHIP OF ALTERNATIVES TO NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
(NEPA) GOALS
Section 101 of NEPA outlines a national environmental policy that
all federal agencies must carry out. To do this, agencies must use
all practicable means to ensure that their actions fulfill six goals.
These goals are listed below, and the relationships of the Proposed
Action and alternatives to these six goals are discussed.
1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
environment for succeeding generations.
II-12
All of the alternatives would tend tq improve the. basic resources
of soil, water and vegetation. However, the natural condition of
the area would be better protected under alternatives which
propose wilderness designation.
2. Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
All of the alternatives would achieve this goal. The No Wilder­ness/
No Action Alternative wou1d allow for the development of
projects which could impair the natural scenic values of the
area.
3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
without degradation, risk to health or_safety, or other
undesirable and unintended consequences.
Under the various alternatives, wilderness designation would
preclude mineral and energy development and some proposed live­stock
management projects. However, the favorabiity of the area
for mineral and energy development is generally low. Without
wilderness designation, wilderness characteristics may be lost.
4. Preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our
national heritage, and maintain, whenever possible, an environ­ment
which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.
The preservation of historic and cultural aspects would not be
significantly different under any alternative. The wilderness
alternatives would best preserve the natural aspects of the area.
5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will
permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
amenities.
There appears to be no differences among the alternatives in
achieving this NEPA goal.
6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the
maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
Renewable resources such as vegetation and wildlife would be
enhanced by implementation of any of the alternatives. None of
the alternatives would affect the recycling of depletable
resources.
D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A summary of the environmental consequences for each land
management alternative is presented in Table II-7 located on the
following pages.
II-13
-----=---
H
H
....I.,. ..
All Manageable W1.l.deroess
Altemative
Wilderness
Wilderness dlaracteristics on
374,160 acres in eight 1&\s preser­ved
or eMarral by wilderness deslg­nation.
Wilderness <::baracJ:erlstics
on 63,267 acres of plat..., dJml.ni­she:
l in portlor>! of I& CR-3-195,
NV-Q1D-106, & ID-16-49A, 16-52 & 16-
53 (NI'-<l1D-103A). Wililerness charac­ter
on 1,200 acres of canyon in WSA
NV-Q1D-106 mrlntsinal by A£EC ...,....
gement. Naturalness, solitude & pri­mitive
recreation of wilderness area
eMarral by closure of roads & ways
to mtorized recreation use & t~
bq>l.ementation of gtazi'l! S)'StEIIIS
with lfm:ltations on grazing use
levels & raq:elao:l clevel.qeents.
lhturalness, 9:>litu:ie & Jrl.mttive
recreation reiu::ed on o:adldemess
aress becalse of increased mtor!zed
vehicle use, 1an:l treatJienl: p:ojects
(I.da!D l&s), ID:reased grazf.'l! use
J.eo.>els (WSA CR-3-195) & additional
raq:elao:l develqmmts. llineral &
eoetgy clevel.qeent cruld also poten­tially
reduce wilderness charac­teristics
on rr::odldemess areas.
TABLE n-7. OM'A!WIVE JMPACr ru~tW«
(Narrative refers to all 1&\s unless specified)
No W!Meroess/No Actloo
Alternative
Wl.lderness cnaracteristi.cs within
88,200 acres of caeyon in eight lo5As
maiotained by 11M NZC/IMA designa­tion.
Wilderness characteristics on
198,800 acres of platew wlthin MJlC/
1MA in alll&s, except NV-<l1D-106,
mderstely rEdu=ed by wlldlife & live­stock
u8nageient projects (lanl treat­UEilts
& structural ~ :Improvements)
& ID:reased grazf.'l! use 1eoe1s. Wil­derness
characteristics on rr::JrrACF£/
IMA plateau lso:ls of all eig!tt l&s
s!gnificsotly Impacted by mre :!nten­siw
liwstock ~ projects &
mtorized vehicle use as wall as fran
poteotial "'"''l!Y develqmmt. -
COllStruction al~ the Owyhee River
WCJJ1.d raDrln a contirual threat to the
wildemess character of the ca.nyom.
Osoyonlanis Wilderness
Alternative
Impacts ..,W.d be as described
under No W!Meroess/No Actloo
Altema.tive except wilderness
characteristics in can)'""· pre­setved
by 87,000 acre wilderness
ares in eight l&s & by 1,200 MJlC
deslgnati<>n (WSA NV-<llD-106).
Wildlife Wilderness
Alternative
Wilderness characteristics (Ce­serva:
i or enhanced on 'lB7, 490
acres in seven WSAs. W:ilder­ness
characteristics in t&. Nll­OlD-
106 not preserved by wl1-
derness designation. Wilder­ness
character on 2,800 acres
of CBII)'>Il in I& NV-<llD-106
mrlntained by NZC ~t.
Wilderness characteristics
diminisbOO. on 148,337 acres of
plal:eal in portions aE I& CR-
3-195, NV-Q1o-106, ID-16-48C,
16-49A, U1-49E, 16-52 & 16-53
(NV-Q1(}- 103A). No lnss of
wilderness character in ~A
ID-16-488 & 16-490. Impacts to
naturalness, s>litude & prfm:t­tive
recreation wu1d be as
described no:ler All !Image­able
Wilderress Alternative.
All Wilileroess
Alternative
Wilderness characteritics main­tainEd
on 436,047 acres in ei8Jlt
lo5As. tb loss of wilderness
character in mv ~. ~r,
{:Otential to enhance wilderness
characteristics reduced becaJse
roads oot closed to recreation
use. Also, tb! failure to
acquire state & private in­h::>
ldings could result in !ncan­pitibl.
e uses & aiditional access
routes Wrlch could imp:t!r
wilderress characteristics in
'p)rtions of tiE ~.
........
..I. .
"'
All~W~
Alternative
Scerdc Values
TABlE II-7. aMPARATlVE IMPN::r !UtWrl
(Narrative refers tn all l&s unless specified)
N:> Wilderness/No Action
Alternative
Catcyon1an1s Wilderness
Alternative
Wildlife Wilderness
Alternative
All Wildetness
Altemative
Scerdc quality In all el8ht l&s would not be slgnificantly affected by 8DJ of the five alternatives mder curre0t -t objectives. Visual Resource~ (VRM) mder each
altemati"' cs1ls for mrlntalnill! a high degree of oaWrsl scenic quality (VIM Class I or II) In the 1&8' canyons & Interior plst:Ba> areas. Even unler the less restrictive VIM Cless
III & IV aress of the WSAs' peripheral plstesus, extensive rargeland devel~ would only slightly recb:e scenic quality. OOy the JDSSibiity of damS on the Owyhee River, extensive
mineral d~t or high volt"!!' powerl.lne installation pemdtted In future plami1l! efforts unler the N:> Wilderness/No Action Altemati'"' would serirusly degrade scenic qualitY of
the ws.\s. .
Vegetation -
374,160 acres of the myolite
canya>lsnds/sagebrush-lu>c:lwass
ea:syst<m would be represented in
the National Wilderness Preservation
Syeten (lin'S). Fcol"@ical con:iition
of natural plant camanl.ties would
lmprooe In all el8ht l&s, except In
llOfld.ldemess areas 'Were seedings
to oon-native species ocwr.
Wildlife
There woold be "' representation of
the myollte ~/sagebrush­lm<%
rass ecosysten within the Nil'S.
<b tm plateaiS, seed!~ to ron-native
or "naturalized" species cruld disrupt
the natural plant camanl.ty. Dan oon­struction
cculd innmdate the habitats
of threateoed & ~ plsnts In'
the canyom . Olrerall eeol cgt cal con­ditioo
of native Vf#tatioo. loiOOl.d
lmprooe In all eight l&s, except
~ aeedit@: to oon-native species
=·
87,000 acres of the tilyolite
csnyonlands/sagebrush-b.nchgrass
ecosyst<m would be represented In
the tlolPS. Plant cClD'lUlities on
the plsl:eals would be excluled.
Ecol.og1csl condition of native
plant camunities would lmprooe In
all eight l&s, <=Opt where
seedil':@S to ~tive spdes
occur.
287,490 acres of the myolite
csnyonlands/sagebrush-b.mch­grass
ecosY,t<m would be in­elided
in the Nil'S. Ecol.og1csl
coalition of native plant ccm­m.
nl.ties would ~ in all
eighf l&\8, except in non­wilderness
areas where seedit1gs
to noa-na.tive species ocCur.
436,047 acres of the tltyolite
canyonlands/ sagebrush-'buncl®'ass
ecosyst<m would be lnclo:led In
the Nil'S. Ecol.ogicsl crindl.t!on
of native plant C<JIIUiities
would 1mprove In all eight l&s •
Qn:rent- P'"'ct!ces (No Wilderness/No Action Alternative), as ...U as the p<OpOsed wilderness- p<act!ces contslned In the frur wilderness alternatives, would p<otect
wildlife habitats & llBlntsln or Increase wildlife populations. California blgbm1 sheep populst:lolls would Increase mder each alternative. Populstion growth rates & habitat expansion
would be tied tn ~!!"" - p<actlces by !liM and state wildlife agencies rather than by land des:fgnat:lolls. The only algnificant difference between alternatives is that the N:>
Wilderness/No Action Alternative would not p<Ohibit the loss of canya> wildlife habltats & populations tn reservoir consttuct!on nor devel- of potential mineral & enetgy
resources. · ' '
....
H
..I.. .
"'
All ~ Wilderness
Alternative
Cultural Values -
The closure of 'A:lys & sane roads to
public I!Dtorized use & limitations
on increases in livestock grazi~
.wid redu::e damage "' cultural
sites within the wilderness area.
Recreation -
TAmE II-7. a:MPARATIVE IMPACI &JtftiRY
(Narrative refers to all W5As unless specified)
lb Wilderness/No Action
Alternative
Within the river canyons, cultural
resources wu1d receive protection
t.Mer the Owyhee River Recreation
Managa:Ient Plan. Ch platealS, cultural
resources tDJl.d deteriorate at a
slightly ire:reased rate dt:e to in­creased
livestock grazirg & greater
mtorized recreation use. Dan con­st:
n.£tion ca.lld flood sites within
canyons.
Canyonlsnds Wilderness
Alternative
Within the canyors, cultural
values would be protected. On tiE
plateaus, ardlaeological sites
wu1d deteriorate at an increase:l
rate as in the No Wildemess/No
Action Alternative.
Wildlife Wilderness
Alternative
The closure of ways & sane
roads to ptDlk mtorized use &
limitations on increases of
livestock grazing .wid redu::e
danage 1D cultural sites within
tiE wilderness area.
~.
All Wllderness
Alternative
The closure of ""}'S to public
rootorized use & llml.ts pla::e:i on
increases in livestock grazirg
.wid redu::e damage ID cultural
sites in the wilderness area.
leavi~ roais within tte wUder­rrss
area open to p.lblic liDto­rizei
use would salBroftat offset
this positive !mpect.
Total recreation use of the WSAs would irerease by aboot tiE sam aJIDmt (by tlE :year 2002) tm:ler each alternative. Total use is expected to ~ equally in eadl ~ on a per a::re
basis. Boatirl! & biclqnckifll use slnuld increase ID a grester degree thsn h.ntirl!. Specific :Impacts by alternative are as foll=l, .
Physicsl & social settirl! necessazy
for outst.and:i.q; primitive recreation
""P"riences enhanced en 37 4 ,160
acres in eight t&s by wilderness
designation. Pr.imitive recreation
opplrtunities within 1,200 acres of
river ca-qyon in WSA lf./-Q1Q-106 nain­tained
by ACPr. ~t. SEmi­primitive
trOtorized recreation ex-­periences
lcet due to the closure of
16.5 miles of roOOs & 77.4 miles of
ways. Vehicle route closures wo..tl.d
restrict h.ntiq:; access an::l displace
hwtirg use to surroun:H.q:; m~
wildene;s areas. E;Kist~ mtorized
recreation access into the canyons
~-~
Primitive recreation opp>rtunities
witlrl.n 88,200 acres of river canyoos:
in eight WSAs - by llUI HJ'£1
lMA designation. Prlm!tive & seni­tr:
lmitive mtorized recreation oppJr­tmities
on 198,000 acres of plateau
in seven W'SAs maintained (platea.Js of
1& NIHJlQ-106 not irclt>led in ACEC).
M:>torized recreation use al~ to
continE on all exist~ roads & ways
within A(N;/J:MA. 149,047 acres of mn­ACPr./!
MA lao! open ID mrestticted
aotorized recreation use. l'btorized
access to S.F. ~e River in WSA.
NV-{)lQ-106 cculd 1B improved by recon­struction
of '1\.l:llve Mile J{oad. Total
lmpicts s:fmilar to tbJse described
under lb Wlldemass/No Acticn
Alternative except primitive rec­reation
oppJrtuoities of river
canyons preserved by 87, ()(X) acre
wilderness designation & 1,200
acre A<EC designation; 2.5 miles
of road & 3.5 miles of wys close:i
to semi-primitive trOtorlzed rec­reation
use; potential dan co~
struc.tion or mineral developrent
along Owyhee River would not
threaten pl:'imitive recreation
oppJrtwities in canyons. Total
recreation use coold increase to
15,400 user days by year 2000.
Physicsl & social eettirl!s
necessazy for outstan<lifll pri­mf.
tive recreation· eXperiences
enhancEd on '127 ,49l acres in
seven WSAs. N:me of ~NV­OlQ-
16 iocluded in wilderness
designation, but primitive rec­reation
oppJrtunities mi~
taJned within its 2,800 acre
river C&l}'X1 by ACPr. mmage­m;
nt. Semi-primitive notarized
recreation experieD:es lost due
to closure of 15.8 miles of
rosd & 50.8 miles of ways.
lhlt:a<>ter boatifll & luntirl!
~ affected as in All
Primitive recreation opp::~rtuni­ties
1lBint:a:lnOO on 436,04 7 EK:res
in eight WSAs. Semi-primitive
untorizEd recreation use a11.cxe1
to c:ontinE en 38.25 miles of
road. ircl»lifll the boating
access roa:ls into t:re river c.an-­yons.
Seni-primf.tive Jtr>torize:l
recreation use opplrb.mities
lost on 104.3 miles of ways. lb
lanls .wid be """' to oores­trictel
mtorizei recreation
use. Roo:1s ~ ~n in
mAs would result in less dis­p!
acaDent of hntifll uae. 'lbtal
recreation use could increase to
.-. -- -~~ ~- ~ - ~~.--.- - ·-~~.--.~ --·--· ~ ~ ..._
........
..I . -.j
All ~ Wilderness
Alterriative
Recreation-for
.tdte.eter boatiq: maffectEd.
Mltorized access to S.F. CMyhee
River in WSA N\1-01()..106 could be
~by reconstruction of 1\Elve
Mile Road. 63,267 acres of oon­deslgnatEd
p1atew lands open to
unrestricted ootorized recreation
use. 'lbtal recreation use cCJUl.d
increase to 15,400 user days by the
year 2002.
Lh>!Stock Grazi~ -
TAILl! II-7. <XMPARATIVE lMPACr &J!K\RY
{Narrative refers to all lEAs unless specifiEd)
No Wildemess/No Action
Alternative
recreation use could :increase to
15,400 user days by tl>! year 2002.
1m comtructioo sl.oq: the Owyhee
River ~ cont1me m threaten
boat!q:, beckpadd~ & lultiq:
opportmities. Enensive ""l'fi'
Improvements rutside the Amc could
degrade pdm:Ltive & san:L,r!ml.tive
recreation opp:n:tunities in IdaiD' s
lEAs. Potential mineral arxl energy
&!vel.CipDent. cruld reduce recreation
opportwities througOOut tl>! l&\s.
Canyonlands Wildemess
Altemative
Wildlife Wildemess
Alternative
Mmageab1e Wil&!mess Alterna­tive.
148,337 acres of mn­designatEd
p!ateaJ lands open
tD t.nrestricte:l llXltorized rec­reation
use. 'lbtal recreation
use cruld io::rease to 15,400
user days by the year 2002.
All Wilderness
Alternative
15,600 user days ~ the jear
2002. The failure to acquire
state & private intx>ldi.~ COJ1d
result in a:lditional access
rtutes & :lncaupatible uses \hich
WQJJ.d redoce priml.tive rec­reation
opplrtlmities in
p>rtions of tle \o&\s.
Wilderness designation WOIJJ.d. redu::e tl>! capab1lity of gr~ syst""' within affectEd allo_,.s to optimize increases in grazi~ use through better livestock distrirutioo & forage
utilization. '1he level of livestock use within wilderness areas WJUI.d rena1n at or near the l.evei of use ocrurrirg at the tine of designation. Uvestodc use levels cuts1de of
w:lldemess area booodarles are expected to Jn:rease becaJse of ne~ project devel.oplent, vegetation treat:nents ani ~ ra~ coniition. 'nE potential ~rease in livestock use is
expected to ocrur \Dder each alternative is sb:lwn belcw:
Total livestock use within allot­l!
elts affectEd by w:lldemess desig­nation
of the eight WSAs could in­crease
by 54,954 AUla (225,698 AUla
to 280,652 AUla).
Water-
Wildernes~ designation !oJOUl.d prevent
the construction of dams to store
lrBter for irrigation.
Total livest:odt use within allotments
affectEd by wilderness designation
could fncrease by 83,273 AIMs (225,698
AIMs to 308,971 AIMs).
Ims co.Jl.d be constructed if rivers
are oot 1nclu:Jed within the National
Wild & Scenic Rivers Systan.
lbtal livestock '!"" wltin allot­ments
affectEd by wilderness de­signation
could fncrease by 83,213
AIMs (225,698 AIMs to 308,911
Allis).
Sane as All ""'-"'>le Wildernes~
Alternative.
Total livestock use within
allone>ts affectEd by wilder­ness
designation catld increase
by 55,356 AIMs (225,698 AilM3 to
281,054 AIMs).
Sme as All "'"-able Wilder­ness
Alternative.
lbtal livestock use wlthin
allotments affected by wll&r­ress
designation COJl.d increase
by 43,583 AIMs (225,698 AIMs to
269,281 AIMs).
Sane .. All ~eable Wilder­ness
Alternative.
H
'.i.'. CD
All ~I.e Wilderness
Alternative
Soils -
Potential for soU d:Lsturl::ance &
eros!.oo .oould be redu:al on 375,360
acres. Within canyons,. mln:fm1zirg
llvestcxk use would help stabilize
lrlghly ero:lable str""" bsti<s & flood
plains. Potential for eros!.oo on
63,267 acres of plsteau Increased
becaJse of Increased grazing use,
r~rd developlent ~jects &
po~ mineral develOf'l"!lt·
TABlll II-7. <DIPARATIVE JMPACr s:MIARY
(Nsrrative refers to all II3As uoless specifie:l)
No Wilderness/No Action
Alternative
N2£/l:MA mnagenelt of '2137 ,000 acres
of cacyon srd plsteal .oould reduce t"'
erosion hazard in the same manner as
ooder the All ~I.e Wildemess
Alternative. 149,047 acres of pla.tea1
.oould be susceptible to Increased
ercsion fran Increased graziqj use &
rangelard trea= projects, & fran
potential mioersl developaent.
Cacyonlands Wilderness
Alternative
The potential for erosion ~ be
decreased on 88,200 acres of can­yon
& 198,800 acres of platea.t.
149,047 acres of plsteau .oould be
susceptible to increased ercsion
as under the No Wilderness/No
Action Alternative.
Wildlife Wilderness
Alternative
Eros ion l«lUld decrease on
288,690 acres, ltrl1e erosion
):Dtential would increase on
about 148,337 acres as in the
No Wilderness/No Action
Alternative.
All WildernesS
Alternative
Erosion potential .oould decrease
on 436,~7 acres.
Lands -
Omership ant use of, ani access to state an:i p:-ivate :i.nh:>l.ding:; wou1d not be sigrl.ficantly affectEd by any alternative unless tbare is a change in the use of de laMs. Non-fe!Eral
lan:i use com:lderations for each alternative are as fol.l.aws:
Existill! road """""" to & use of
~E"ivate & state lands would re:ra1n.
Stste lsrds within wilderness coold
be acquire:! by e>bange. Williq:
private lsnlamers coold· negotiate
easarents or cooperative agreerents
with tb> B!M.
llfrersls & Eneigy -
Within the MJ!£, state lands could be
acquire:! by exdlange & w1lli'1! private
lardomers cruld negotiate easeDmts
or cooperative agree:tents with BIM.
Exist~ access & use wuld be
retained.
SaDe ss All Manageable Wilderness
Alternative.
SaDe as All Manageable Wilder­ness
Alternative.
The morsbllley for mioersl srd enetgy develcpoont is c:oosidere:l low. A"f potential develcpoont ,...Ud be affecte:l as follows:
374,160 acres, except for valid
exlstii1! rlg!ts, .oould be withdrawn
from all fonns of appropriation
Minernl activicy & develcpoont coold
'COlltin.Je. Il:Ds & nBrl utility corri­dors
coold be allowe:l ln t"' AOlC/ItiA
87 ,()(() acres, except for valid
exlstit:£ rights, woo1.d 1:e witb­draro
fran all follllS of
1f37 ,490 acres, eKCept for valid
existl'1! rigPts, would be with­dram
fran all fotms of
State lsrd ....ud oot be acquire:!
& e.a.sarents or cooperative
~-· ....ud not be nego­tiatEd
fran private lao:l<J.oo'tlers.
&:=s to oon-fe:iersl lsrds
....ud be retained·
4.36,047 acres, except for valid
existing ritJ:'lts, WOJl.d 00 witlr­draro
fran all foms of
(
H
H
..I. .
"'
All~ Wilderness
Alternative
Mirerals & Enm:gy -
unler the ml~ laJos. Hydroelectric
dall8 coo1d not be constructe:l &
utility corridors l<Wld be limited
to the 1/4 mile wide corridor aiD~
the Nortb.Jest Pipeline.
Ecooanics-
TABlE II-7. CXMPARATIVE JMPACr 9MIARY
(Narrative refers to all VSAs unless specified)
No Wilderness/No Action
Alternative
if the VRM Class II classification is
changed.
CarcyonJa00s Wilderness
Alternative
appropriation unler the ~
laws. n:ms could not be con­structed
& additional utility cor­ridors
cru1.d. not be established.
Wildlife Wilderness
Alternative
apprq>riation mder the ml~
laws . Dalrs cru1.d. not be con­structed
& additional utility
corridors cru1.d. not be establ­llshed.
All Wilderness
Alternative
apprq>riatinn mder the ml~
laws. Il9m3 cru1.d. not re con­structed.
lb utility corridors
could be established, including
tte corridors alOI"@: the Nortlr­"""
t Pipeline.
1m followi1¥J figures in.iicate that all alternatives are predicted to prodtx!e increases lofdch are affected only slightly ~ tOO wilderness acreage lei~ recameMed. Livestock income
ani aq:>loyiiEilt figures are for the entire affected allobnents. Recreation 1ncane & efi\'l.O)'!IEilt figures are only for the rBAs.
Amual Livestock
Incam $2.8 mlllion $3.1 mlllion $3.1 mlllion $2.8 mlllion $2.7 mlllion
% Chaq:e Fran Present +24% -87% -87% +24% +19%
Anrual Recreation
Incam $49l,COO $504,COO $504,COO $49l,COO $497,000
% Chaq:e fran Present 273% +283% +283% -+>!73% +277%
Livestn<k Relate:!
Elq>loynEnt 79 87 87 79 76
% Chaq:e fran Present +2>1: -88% +38% +2q5% +21%
Recreation Related
Elq>l.oynEnt 21 21 21 21 21
% Chaq:e fran Present -807% -807% +307% +307% -807%
Total Anrual Incane $3.3 mlllion $3.6 mlllion '):!.6 mlllion $3.3 mlllion $3.2 mlllion
% ~e Fran Present -88% +60% +60% +38% +33%
Total Elq>l.oynEnt 100 108 108 100 97
% Chaq:e Pran Present -+47% -159% -159% -+47% -+43%
...,...._ "';'..-
Ill H!I.LdYH:)
CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The description of the environment covers those resources which are
significantly impacted or were identified as significant issues or con­cerns
by the public, BLM and other agencies. Resource character~stics
within all WSAs are very similar; therefore, resource descriptions refer
to all WSAs unless otherwise specified. Specific resource charac­teristics
of the WSAs are addressed under each resource heading.
A. WILDERNESS CHARACTER
The BLM completed a wilderness inventory of roadless areas along
the upper Owyhee River in 1982 using procedures outlined in the BLM
Wilderness Inventory Handbook (1978). From this inventory, eight
wilderness study areas (WSAs) were identified. Each of the eight
WSAs contain mandatory wilderness characteristics (size; naturalness;
solitude and/or primitive recreation opportunities) and supplemental
wilderness values which meet the wilderness criteria established by
the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Appendix A).
1. Wilderness Characteristics
The Owyhee River WSAs are adjoining areas encompassing 681
square miles (436,047 acres) of the high desert plateaus and
canyonlands of Oregon, Idaho and Nevada. Each WSA consists of
flat to gently rolling sagebrush plateaus lying at elevations of
4000 to 5500 feet. These plateaus are sharply dissected by
miles of deep, meandering canyons. The WSAs stretch almost
continuously along 260 miles of canyons varying in depth from
200 to 1200 feet. The WSAs are separated from one another only
by several primitive (low-standard) roads and small isolated
parcels of state and/or private land.
a. Naturalness:
Each of the WSAs possess a high degree of naturalness.
Imprints of man are present in each WSA but they are sub­stantially
unnoticeable. Imprints are widely scattered and
consist of:
1) range improvements including small stock ponds or
reservoirs, barbed wire fences, and water troughs
associated with springs,
2) primitive vehicle routes including 2-wheel tracks
(ways) and minimally constructed cherry stem roads,
and
3) ruins or remnants of old log or stone buildings of
historic and cultural value.
III-1
,,I
.,.,
I
!
I,
i
, •I
t !
·q
J l
l
1 t
I
(.'
I'
"' ['
I
!!
I
I !I
,II
b.
Most imprints occur on the plateaus and consist of
small stock ponds, many of which are serviced by primitive
roads or ways. Within the canyons, imprints are limited to
historic ruins and the external influences of private ranch
sites and WSA boundary roads which supply access to or
across the rivers. The ranch sites and/or boundary roads
which lie between WSAs are encountered from one to three
days apart while. floating the rivers.
The location, number and relative distribution of
man's imprints make for infrequent visual encounters.
Visual contact with range developments and vehicle routes
is extremely limited and of minimal impact because of the
limited soil and vegetation disturbance associated with
their construction, the small size and/or low profile of
the developments, and the presence of topographic and/or
vegetation screening. On the plateaus, imprints are
generally obscured by sagebrush or small changes in topo­graphy
within one hundred feet to several hundred yards.
In the canyons, meandering walls and talus slopes screen
WSA boundary roads at very close distances. Field studies
conducted in 1981 documented that less than eight percent
of any WSA is minimally impacted by man's imprints. The
amount of visual impact from man's imprints within any one
WSA is shown in Appendix A.
Solitude Opportunities:
Each of the WSAs possesses natural features which
provide outstanding opportunities for solitude. When the
WSAs are considered as a group, the overall opportunities
for solitude are of exceptionally high quality.
The outstanding .opportunities for solitude in each WSA
are attributed to the isolated, intimate seclusion of
canyonlands and the viewing of hundreds to thousands of
square miles of vast, open, seemingly undisturbed desert
plateau lands and distant mountain ranges.
The canyons of the WSAs are typically deep, narrow and
very meandering. In many areas, sheer walls rise directly
from the_ river beds to the rimrock. Canyon sections with
sheer walls are frequently interrupted by steep talus
slopes. In other areas, talus slopes are found above an
inner canyon of vertical rock faces.
The meandering character of the canyon walls and river
beds provide excellent topographic screening between
visitor groups traveling close together. River level views
up and down the canyons are limited to .25 to .5 miles.
The depth of the canyons combined with limited viewing
distances creates a tremendous sense of seclusion or
separation from the rest of the world.
III-2
The length of canyons involved in each WSA allows
visitor groups to readily find campsites which are out of
sight and sound of other groups. Furthermore, the length
of canyons provides ample time and distance for visitor
groups to adjust their rates of travel and campsite
locations to avoid interaction with other groups while
floating or hiking. Along the 178 miles of river within
the WSAs, there are hundreds of campsites. There are also
many campsites in the tributary canyons. Because of the
characteristics of these canyons, outstanding opportunities
for solitude can be maintained by simply controlling the
rate of visitor entry into the canyons.
The frequent breaks in the sheer canyon walls
encourage recreation use of the surrounding plateau areas.
The many talus slopes invite climbs to the rimrock for
scenic canyon views and expansive vistas of plateau lands.
From many high points on the plateaus, one can see hundreds
to thousands of square miles of vast open spaces seemingly
untouched by man stretching eastward from the Steens
Mountains in Oregon to Juniper Mountain in Idaho, and
southward to the Bull Run Mountains of Nevada. These vast
open spaces instill a sense of complete separation from
civilization. After leaving the plateaus and returning to
a secluded camp among the narrow canyon walls, one is aware
that solitude or isolation has been achieved.
c. Primitive Recreation Opportunities:
The intrinsic natural features which provide out­standing
opportunities for solitude also contribute to
outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined
recreation in all WSAs but WSA ID-16-48C.
The canyonlands and plateaus provide exceptionally
scenic natural features (see Scenic Quality) and a
diversity of rugged landforms. These features attract
people interested in hunting, backpacking and river
running, and associated secondary activities of sight­seeing,
outdoor photography, wildlife viewing, botanical
studies and fishing. Because of the quality of these
secondary activities (which are associated with supple­mental
wilderness values), river running opportunities are
of exceptionally high quality and considered of national
significance.
The miles of canyons, their diversely and severely
eroded rock landscapes, their steep slopes, and the
dominance of subdued brown and red rock all combine to
create a sense of isolation or solitude; thereby enhancing
the primitive recreation experience. Visitors traveling in
or near the canyons are constantly aware of the forces of
nature that have formed the severely eroded landscapes.
Floating or hiking along the rivers and tributary streams
III-3
I.
,,,
1
I' II
1
,1
I
"I !· d.
gives one a sense of participation in the movements of a
natural force.
The challenge and excitement of whitewater rapids as
well as several mandatory portages of rock falls add
significantly to the boating experience. Hiking the rugged
canyons and plateaus without the aid of established trails
also provides a more natural and arduous recreational
challenge which heightens the primitive experience.
The numerous talus slopes of the canyons encourage the
exchange of recreation use between the rivers and plateaus.
Because travel across sagebrush plateaus could generally
result in a sense of monotony, recreational use of the
plateau areas would tend to concentrate near the canyon
rims. These rimrock areas of the plateaus often offer less
arduous hiking conditions than those in the canyons and
provide numerous opportunities for spectacular vistas of
the canyons below. The area of use on the plateaus is
likely to be fairly wide in many of the WSAs in Idaho due
to the very meandering character of the canyon rimrock and
the presence of major side drainages. These natural
features encourage travel at greater distances from the
rimrock because of easier, more straight forward hiking
conditions. Furthermore, since the canyon system can be
seen at greater distances on many plateau areas due to
downsloping terrain, visitors can enjoy vistas at greater
distances. Hiking on the plateaus also provides an
opportunity to experience vast, open spaces stretching into
the distant horizon. Therefore, many of the plateau areas
have outstanding primitive experiences equivalent to those
of the canyons.
Because of the miles of canyons available and the
large size of the plateaus, quality primitive recreation
experiences can last several days to a week or more in each
WSA and up to several weeks in the WSA complex.
The only WSA lacking in outstanding primitive
recreation opportunities is WSA ID-16-48C. This WSA is
lacking in outstanding opportunities because of its
relatively low scenic quality, a lack of diversity in
landform, restricted mobility between the canyons and
plateaus, and few opportunities for recreation activities.
Though this WSA possesses less than outstanding primitive
recreation values, it has a high degree of naturalness and
has outstanding opportunities for solitude.
External Influences:
The most significant external influence affecting the
WSAs is frequent low elevation flights by military
aircraft. The entire southwest corner of Idaho has been
established as a military operations area (MOA). This MOA
III-4
is used far training military p~lats in low elevation,
subsonic flight in mostly fighter-bomber type aircraft.
Numerous fighter-bomber flights per day occur over
differe~t flight patterns at elevations as low as 100 feet
above the surface of the plateaus. 'Daily low elevation
flights of B-52 bombers also occur over WSA lands in
Oregon. Due to the variation in flight patterns and
schedules over this large area, ,impacts upon the solitude
to visitors varies greatly from day to day and week to
week. At times ~ircraft can be seen and/or heard flying
all day. Other time,s 0ne can travel for several days and
not .see or hear a jet.
2. Supplemental Wilderness Values
The WSAs are rich in supplemental 'wilderness values,
including scenic, ecological, scientific, wildlife and cultural
values. The supplemental values contribute significantly to
the overall quality of the WSAs' wilderness character.
a. Scenic Values:
The canyonlands of the Owyhee River system are of
exceptionally high scenic quality. The combination of
moving water, colorful sheer ciiffs, gras,s covered talus
slopes, and blue sky combine to create a dramatic stark
beauty which totally envelopes the visitor. In places
reddish-brown cliffs drop hundreds of feet into the water.
These fractured, blocky rock monoliths are tinted with
brilliant green, yellow and orange microflora. Near the
base of the cliffs, water sometimes seeps from the frac­tures
to nourish small, lush, clinging, deep green plant
communities. The monoliths are frequently topped with a
multitude of diversely eroded spires. The sheer rock walls
often give way to steep slopes covered with a mosaic of red
rock rubble and subdued green and yellow sagebrush and
grasses.
All of the WSAs' canyons possess this spectacular
scenic grandeur with the exception of WSA ID-16-48C. The
canyon or the East Little Owyhee River does not possess the
diversity in color, texture and landform which are common
place in the other WSAs.
The plateaus also add to the scenic quality of all
WSAs. Deep blue sky often filled with scattered low
hanging clouds ~ominates over a vast, open terrain
blanketed with subdued green and yellow vegetation. In the
spring, the subdued colors are sprinkled with brilliant
blue, yellow and white flowers. In the far distance, snow
capped mountains can be seen stretching along the horizon.
III-5
~
,,'I
I
,,'
I
' l'
l
.l ~l '
' '' 'I
II
I
j
i i'
I
I I'
'1l1 II;
I'
,f 'i
' I
' ;
I
I
"
I
\,
b. Vegetation (Ecological and Scientific) Values:
The upper Owyhee River system lies within a broad
regional landform and vegetation classification known as
the Intermountain Sagebrush Province/Sagebrush Steppe
Ecosystem (Bailey-Kuchler, 1966). Within the WSAs, the
ecosystem can be more accurately defined as a rhyolite
canyonlands/sagebrush-bunchgrass ecosystem.
The canyonlands are generally comprised of about 70%
rhyolitic and basaltic rock outcrop, 10% rock rubble
(talus), 15% river bottomlands and 5% riparian areas. The
most dominant plant .species on the landscape is big sage­brush.
Basin big sagebrush is commonly found on the canyon
bottoms while Wyoming big sagebrush occupies the dryer
slopes of the canyons. Pure stands of Idaho fescue and
bluebunch wheatgrass often occupy the steep slopes, with
Idaho fescue being more abundant in sheltered, moister
habitats. In WSA OR-3-195(ID-16-48B) there are widely
scattered junipers on the slopes of the canyons. In the
moister, more sheltered areas of most WSAs, there are small
stands of juniper. Juniper trees are more abundant in the
Owyhee River Canyon below Three Forks, Oregon. Hackberry
is also found scattered along the canyon bottoms. The
vegetation in the canyons is mostly in good ecological
condition with some areas being in excellent or pristine
condition.
The riparian areas of the canyons are comprised mostly
of grasses, rushes and sedges. Only in sheltered areas of
the main canyons and tributary canyons are species of
willow, aspen and cottonwood found. High water flows in
winter and early spring scour the canyon bottoms and
prevent growth of ~arger shrubs and tree species.
On the plateaus there is a vegetation mosaic of low
sagebrush species, big sagebrush (mostly Wyoming big
sagebrush), bunchgrasses and antelope bitterbrush.
Scattered western juniper are also spread over much of the
northern plateaus of Idaho within WSA OR-3-195(ID-16-48B).
Big sagebrush stands occupy deeper soil sites on generally
more than 50% of the land surface of the WSAs. Low sage­brush
stands occupy the shallower soil sites on about 35%
of the land surface with less than 15% of the plateau areas
being barren. The vegetation of the plateau area is
generally in good ecological condition close to the canyon
rims, but in poor to fair condition over the remainder of
the areas.
There are eight known plant species located in the
Owyhee canyons which are classified by the scientific
community as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. These
plants are discussed under planning criteria in Chapter v.
III-6
c. Wildlife Values:
The Owyhee River WSAs provide excellent habitat for
many species of wildlife. The primary species are
California bighorn sheep, mule deer, antelope, Canada geese
and other waterfowl, raptors and other birds, river otter,
beaver, mountain lion and bobcat. Wildlife diversity
associated with the rhyolite canyonlands/sagebrush­bunchgrass
ecosystem is a result of many vegetative types
that exist in unique habitat features created by the
joining of sagebrush-bunchgrass plateaus and deeply cut
canyons. Some species are dependent upon this ecosystem
for year-round habitat, and other species can be found
seasonally. For the most part, wildlife habitats are in
good condition on the steep slopes and canyon bottoms and
in fair to poor condition on the plateaus.
The rhyolite canyonlands/sagebrush-bunchgrass eco­system
provides yearlong habitat for bighorn sheep. The
bighorn are dependent upon wildlands canyon or mountain
habitat for their survival. California bighorn sheep (Oxis
canadensis californeana) were successfully reintroduced~
the Battle Creek, Deep Creek and Owyhee River canyon com­plex
(WSAs ID-16-49A, 16-49D and ill-49E) during the
sixties. Since that time, their population has expanded
westward along the Owyhee River into WSA OR-3-195
(ID-16-48B). There is a proposal to transplant bighorn
sheep into the canyon complex of the South Fork in WSA
ID-16-53(NV-010-103A). Presently an estimated population
of 400 bighorns inhabits the Owyhee canyonlands year
around. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game's planning
objectives call for a further increase of 75 sheep by 1985.
The proposed South Fork transplant could eventually result
in a population of over 600 bighorn sheep within Idaho and
Nevada. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is also
attempting to reintroduce bighorn sheep into the Owyhee
River Canyon of Oregon in WSA OR-3-195(ID-16-48B).
Mule deer are the most numerous big game species in
the WSAs. All of the WSAs have mule deer habitat of which
most is yearlqng range. Much of the_canyonlands also
provide crucial winter range for additional migratory deer.
Populations of pronghorn antelope are scattered
throughout the WSAs and are primarily limited to the
plateaus above the canyons. Important spring-summer-fall
ranges for pronghorn antelope can be found in WSAs
ID-16-49A, 16-49D and 16-49E. WSAs OR-3-195 (ID-16-48B),
ID-16-48C, 16-53 and a por.tion of 16-49A are considered
yearlong range.
The mountain lion is also a yearlong resident in the
canyonlands. Lions increase in number as the mule deer
concentrate during the winter months. The bobcat is a
III-7
111
I
'
''"I
.)I'
j,
I
II
i
111
,, '
,J
il
I'
l :II
I
t
yearlong resident, but does not increase in numbers during
the winter.
There are about 230 miles of perennial streams and
rivers in the WSAs. The associated riparian habitats of
the canyon bottoms are used more than any other habitat
type. The canyon bottoms provide a structural diversity
offered by water, sometimes a tree layer, a shrub layer and
a herbaceous layer that provide large amounts of nesting,
brood rearing, hiding, escape and thermal cover for high
densities of many species of wildlife, including the
smaller, non-game species.
The upper Owyhee River system is a rich reproductive
area for waterfowl. Four species of geese and eighteen
species of ducks occur in the WSAs as residents or
migrating species. Nesting geese have been reported at one
mile intervals along the river shoreline.
River otter and beaver can also be found along the
entire river complex. Their presence is dependent upon the
maintenance of good to excellent riparian areas and the
aquatic habitat conditions. However, the aquatic habitat
condition within the WSAs is mostly in fair or poor
condition.
The streams of the WSAs provide habitat for eight
principal species of fish. The species are red band trout,
smallmouth bass, dace, suckers, squawfish, shiners, chisel­mouth
and sculpins. The 178 perennial miles of the Owyhee
River system do not support a significant trout population
but do support an increasing number of smallmouth bass.
The WSAs also provide habitat for bird populations
including raptors, sage grouse and chukar partridge.
Golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, kestre~s, prairie falcons
and owls are the primary raptors found nesting in the
canyonlands. Golden eagles and red-tailed hawks nest at
two to three mile intervals along the main river canyons,
while prairie falcons and owls frequently nest in the
smaller tributary canyons. Kestrels nest throughout the
canyon systems. The major canyons also serve as winter
habitat for bald eagles. Sage grouse are found scattered
over the· plateaus and are one of the most important game
birds to be found. These birds tend to winter close to the
canyon rim in the vicinity of their strutting and breeding
grounds. Chukar partridge are another abundant upland game
bird species in the WSAs. Their habitat is located along
the canyon bottoms and lower canyon slopes. Mountain quail
are also found in the canyon of the South Fork Owyhee River
in WSA ID-16-53 (NV-010-103A).
III-8
d. Cultural Values
. B. RECREATION
The Owyhee River cany<;ms and surrounding· plateaus are
rich in historic homesteads and prehistoric sites.' Most of
the historic resources lie on private property between or
immediately adjacent to the WSAs. The major historic sites
are located near the Owyhee River's confluences with Louse
Canyon (West Little Owyhee River), Battle Creek Canyon,
Oxbow Canyon, and the East'Little Owyhee River (45 Ranch),
and at Twelve Mile, Coyote Hole and Crutcher's Crossing.
These sites typically consist of one or more stone
buildings with partially collapsed sod roofs supported by
juniper logs, or of log cabins constructed of well
weathered junipers carved with names and dates of yearly
visitors and settlers. other features include waterwheels,
old wagons, wooden water pipes, juniper-brush corrals, old
wood stoves, and numerous miscellaneous metal pieces.
· ·some historic ruins are also located on public lands
within the WSAs. The ruins consist mostly of small stone
buildings. Thes~ ruins are located in WSAs OR-3-195
(ID-16-48B), ID-16-49A, ID~l6-49D, ID-16-53(NV-010-103A)
and NV-010-106.
Within the WSAs, evidence of prehistoric use includes
stone tools and the chips produced in tool making. Many
petroglyphs are also found in the Owyhee River canyon below
Three Forks in WSA OR-3-19~(ID-16-48B).
Cultural resource inventories cOmpleted by BLM have
located numerous sites along the rims of the canyons and on
surrounding plateaus. Prehistoric sites have also been
found within some caves or beneath rock overhangs in the
canyons above the rivers' high water lines. Dirty Shame
Rockshelter, located 'in WSA OR-3-195(ID-16-48B) was
excavated in 1973 (Aikens et al. 1977). Radiocarbon dates
showed that the site was intermittently occupied between
4500 and 400 years ago. Periodic high water levels which
erode the river terraces may have ,erased much of the
evidence,of prehistoric activity along the canydn bottoms.
Primitive outdoor recreation is characterized by opportunities
for isolation from the.sights and sounds_of man, to fee~.a part of
the natur~ environment, to have a high degree of challenge and risk,
and to use o~tdoor skills. · ·
T~e Owyhee River system offers outstanding primitive and semi­primitive
recreation opportunities in a scepic, natural setting. The
recreation activities available include river running, 'hunting,
f.ishing, backpacking, photography, nature st!Jdy, camping and horse­back
riding. The Owyhee has become nationally recognized as an
early~season whitewater ~iver.
III-9
'I'
1:r
!
fl
\
I,,
II
I'
I
II
!
,I
•
••
I
I !
I I
I
I'
The Owyhee Wild and Scenic River Study completed in 1979 recom­mended
to Congress that a 192-mile segment of the Owyhee River (128
miles within the WSAs) extending from the western boundary of the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation to the Owyhee Reservoir should be
included within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. To date,
Congressional action has not been taken. The South Fork of the
Owyhee River was not included in the study. However, the South Fork
is included within the Nationwide Rivers Inventory for consideration
for addition to the system and has been recommended for wild river
study by the BLM.
Semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities exist on 13
miles of boundary roads separating the WSAs and on 38.25 miles of
interior (cherry stem) roads. There are also 104.3 miles of two­wheel
tracks or ways within the WSAs which provide additional semi­primitive
motorized recreation opportunities. There are no developed
foot trails. Travelers on foot or horseback must follow big game or
livestock trails, primitive roads, or journey cross-country. The
lack of developed trails serves to disperse users and to provide
greater challenges to recreationists.
The road access put-in points for boaters are:
Owyhee River
1. Duck Valley Indian Reservation, Idaho
2. Northwest Gas Pipeline (Garat Crossing), Idaho
3. Crutcher's Crossing, Idaho
4. Three Forks, Oregon
South Fork
1. YP Ranch, Nevada
2. Northwest Gas Pipeline, Nevada
·3. 45 .Ranch, .Idaho ,
Hunting and whitewater boating are the two most popular rec­reation
activities within the area. Visitation for other activities
is light when compared to hunting and boating because the outstanding
recreation opportunities are little known to recreationists and
because a wealth of similar resources exist elsewhere within Oregon,
Idaho and Nevada. This results in a wide dispersion of regional
recreation use.
The hunting seasons vary between the three states. Seasons
generally run from September through February depending upon wildlife
species. The principal big game species hunted are mule deer and
antelope. Mountain lion and bighorn sheep are also hunted in limited
numbers. Total 1982 hunting use within the WSAs for the three states
is estimated at 1700 user days.
The Owyhee River and the South Fork Owyhee River can be floated
during the high water period from February through June. Most
boating use occurs from mid-April to mid-June, with highest use
III-10
c.
during the Memorial Day weekend. Boating use on the entire river
system has increased from about 500 people in 1974 to over 2000
people by 1980. In 1982, boating use on the portion of the rivers
within the WSAs was about 90 trips with a total of 600 participants,
with one-third of the trips originating above Three Forks. Seventeen
percent of these trips were run by commercial operators. About 1000
days of boating use occurred above Three Forks in 1982, while 1130
days occurred from Three Forks to Rome.
The Owyhee River Recreation Area Management Plan completed by
the BLM in 1983 established the following interim carrying capacities
for boating use within the WSAs river canyons (69,200 acres) during a
91-day control period (April 1 -June 30).
TABLE III-1
OWYHEE RIVER CARRYING CAPACITIES WITHIN WSAs
Starts/day Max. Party Parties/ People/ User
(parties) Size Year Year Days
Above Three Forks 2 15 182 2,730 13,650
Three Forks to Rome 4 15 364 5,460 16,380
TOTAL -6- -- 546 8,190 30,030
The above total annual carrying capacity should not be reached
by the year 2000. However, daily carrying capacities have already
been surpassed on some days, especially on weekends during the latter
part the boating season.
LIVESTOCK GRAZING
1. Grazing Allotments
Public lands within the WSAs play an important role in
providing livestock forage. Collectively, the WSAs affect 23
allotments and 56 range users. There are 10 allotments and 35
range users affected by WSA lands in Oregon. The WSA lands in
Idaho affect 10 allotments and 19 range users. In Nevada, three
allotments and two range users are affected. Allotment size,
active preference (Animal Unit Months - AUMs) and related infor­mation
is given on Table III-2. The affected allotments are
currently undergoing adjustments in active preference to balance
livestock. use with forage production.
Livestock operators use existing roads and ways to check
livestock, distribute salt and to inspect or maintain range
developments.
2. Range Developments
On an allotment basis, grazing systems have been designed
to foster proper livestock use and correspondingly improve range
condition. Implementation of these systems and improvement of
the range is dependent upon existing and in some cases proposed
III-11
·~
ll
I
'I
I
J
H
H
H
,.I. ..
""
Affected
Allotment
OREGON
Arock 111001
Willow Creek 111004
Raburn lt1005
Whitehorse 111008
Jackies Butte 111101
Ambrose Maher lt1102
Campbell lt1306
Louse Canyon Community lt1307
Anderson 111401
Star Valley Community lt1402
NEVADA
Petan Owyhee lt1019
Owyhee 111024
yp lt1037
TABLE III-2. AFFECTED GRAZING ALLOTMENTS
Allotment
Total Active Allotment Acreages
Allotment Preference Within WSAs
Size (Acres) (AUMs)
65,811 9,519 OR-3-195 7,360
68,446 10,618 OR-3-195 3,335
5,856 1,040 OR-3-195 1,080
28,451 4,478 OR-3-195 2,255
211,648 14,334 OR-3-195 31,395
4,002 580 OR-3-195 4,000
155,947 14,518 OR-3-195 13,635
127,642 11,579 OR-3-195 24,920
39,405 2, 964 OR-3-195 39,405
183,180 6,852 OR-3-195 56,105
TOTAL 183,490
10,324 2,094 NV-010-106 2,620
369,653 30,225 NV-010-103A 2,045
NV-010-106 13! 516
Total 15,561
96,795 13,023 NV-010-103A 5,340
NV-010-106 5,928
Total 11,268
% Allotment % WSA
Within WSA Within Allotment
11 4
5 2
18 (1
8 1
15 17
100 2
9 7
20 14
100 21
31 31
I
I
25 12
1 28
4 62
5 53
5 72
6 27
IT 38
'
____________________ , ...................................................................................................... -------------------------------------------~ ----------------~
I
H
H
H
..I. . w
Affected
Allotment
IDAHO
Garat Individual #0524
Bull Basin #0540
Sheep Hills #0551
Garat //0584
Crutcher Crossing #0593
'"45'" //0629
Castlehead-Lambert #0634
Big Springs #0803
Riddle #0805
Northwest //0808
~--~
TABLE III-2. AFFECTED GRAZING ALLOTMENTS (Continued)
Allotment
Total Active Allotment Acreages
Allotment Preference Within WSAs
Size (Acres) (AUMs)
963 80 ID-16-48B 130
44,403 3,726 ID-16-48B 12,045
ID-16-49A 3,265
Total 15,310
20,699 1,200 ID-16-49A 11,270
207,219 33,305 ID-16-48B 7,920
ID-16-49A 21,750
ID-16-490 4,745
ID-16-52 5,855
ID-16-53 21,625
Total 61,895
3,665 138 ID-16-48B 1,850
ID-16-49A 1,815
Total 3,665
123,420 3,852 ID-16-48B 11 '755
ID-16-48C 24,680
ID-16-53 20,885
Total 57,320
45,623 3,123 ID-16-49A 10,300
192,552 17,851 ID-16-49A 21,760
ID-lll-49E 17,200
38,960
189,800 27,199 ID-16-490 5,245
ID-111-49E 13,890
ID-16-52 7,295
Total 26,430
231,467 13,400 ID-lll-49E 450
-
~
% Allotment % WSA
Within WSA Within Allotment
13 <1
27 36
7 4
34 15
54 16
4 24
10 32
2 47
3 45
10 51
29 37
50 5
50 3
100 4
10 35
20 100
17 49
47 57
23 15
11 31
9 55
20 38
3 53
7 44
4 55
i4 48
<1 1
-"- _#-.,
I !
I
' '
,,
I I
I!
1,1
I
·I
I
j,:
I
u
D. WATER
structural rangeland improvements and vegetation manipulation
projects. There are currently 78 reservoirs, 4 developed
springs and 58 miles of fence throughout the WSAs. An estimate
of additional projects that would be implemented under the
various alternatives is shown on Table II-2.
The WSAs encompass 681 square miles of the middle elevations of
the Owyhee River drainage system. Within the WSAs are over 260 miles
of major water coarses including 128 miles of the Owyhee River and 50
miles of the South Fork Owyhee River. These rivers drain the
northern mountain systems of Nevada. In addition to the 178 miles of
rivers, there are over 82 miles of major tributary streams. The
streams and rivers have high, rapidly fluctuating flows during the
winter and spring. The Owyhee River at Rome, Oregon (just downstream
from the WSA complex), can have flows varying between 1,000 and
30,000 cubic feet of water per second (c.f.s.) during the winter and
spring. By mid to late summer, river flows can be at 100 to 200
c.f.s. By late summer, many of the tributary streams will develop
pools and retain very low subsurface flows. Other tributary streams
will dry up completely.
Though there are many miles of intermittent and perennial water
courses, the lands of the WSAs provide only a small percentage of
water to the Owyhee River system. Most water comes from the northern
Nevada mountain ranges and higher desert lands in Idaho to the north
of the WSAs.
Studies were done in the early 1970's to determine the feasi­bility
of constructing several dams on the Owyhee River in Oregon to
capture its high winter and spring flows for summer irrigation.
These dams would have inundated all the canyonlands of WSA OR-3-195
(ID-16-48B) and portions of WSA ID-16-49A, ID-16-48C and ID-16-53.
The studies, however, indica'ted that the dams were not economically
feasible. There are currently no dams under active consideration,
proposed or authorized.
The water quality of the Owyhee River is affected by sedimen­tation
and pollution from both human and animals sources. Clark
(1978) states that agricultural runoff, septic tank and privy
drainage, and solid waste are believed to contribute to cultural non­point
source pollution from the Duck Valley Indian Reservation.
Also, livestock grazing practices are considered to be the single
greatest input for nonpoint source pollution downstream from the
reservation. Bacteriological data would seem to back up these
conclusions. Pollution input from the Indian Reservation appears to
recover rapidly to a good condition as the river progresses down­stream
and is increased in volume from Battle and Deep Creeks. These
creeks along with the South Fork of the Owyhee River are major down­stream
sources of pollutants, contributing large amounts of sedimen­tation
to the Owyhee River system.
III-14
i•
I
~
I
~
'
'•
(
~ '.
'
' '
E. SOILS
The soils of the Owyhee River WSAs occur on two main physio­graphic
positions. They are the nearly level to gently rolling
plateaus with their associated sideslopes and the canyons and stream
channels.
Soils of the plateaus were formed in alluvium derived dominantly·
from basalt and rhyolite. They are shallow or moderatel~deep.
These soils are well developed and have loamy or clayey profiles free
of rock fragments on the less sloping areas but more skeletal on the
sideslope positions. The erosion potential is moderate to high in
these areas. In areas that have surfaces modified.by rock fragments,
the erosion potential is moderate to low. Soils on slopes of greater
than eight percent have high or very high erosion potential.
The canyons are composed of vertical rhyolite and basalt walls
and columns that are irregularly fractured to various degrees. Soils
occur on colluvial-alluvial sideslopes and breaks. They are shallow
or moderately deep. They are loamy in texture with greater than 35
percent rock fragments modifying the texture. The erosion potential
is moderate to high.
Soils in the stream channels formed in recent alluvium. Depths
are shallow to deep. The profiles show very weak to weak development
and are variable in texture and rock fragment content. The erosion
potential.is high or very high.
F. LANDS (Non-federal Ownership)
Lands within the WSAs are 97% to 100% federally owned and
administered by the BLM Vale, Boise and Elko District Offices. Land
ownership by WSA is as follows:
TABLE III-3
LAND OWNERSHIP WITHIN WSAs
Acres
Split-
WSA Federal State Private Estate* Total
OR-3-195 (ID-16-48B) 214,380 1,280 120 10,020 225,800
ID-16-48C 24,600 640 0 25,240
ID-16-49A 70,160 2,560 0 72,720
ID-16-49D 9,990 0 40 10,030
ID-111(16)-49E 31,540 1,240 40 32,820
ID-16-52 13,150 0 0 13,150
ID-16-53 (NV-010-103A) 50,352 1,280 160 51,792
NV-010-106 21,875 0 280 22,155
TOTAL 436,047 7,000 640 10,020 453,707
*Lands where the surface is owned by the federal government but the
subsurface mineral rights are held in non-federal ownership.
III-15
' I 1:
·•,I
j
l
If
t
•"
II
I i
The wsAs are generally surrounded by BLM land with isolated
state lands or spl·it-esta.te lands (Sec.tions 16 and 36) and private
lands. Two noteable exceptions, however, are the Duck Valley Indian
Reservation forming the eastern boundary of WSA ID-16-52 and a large
block of state and private lands affecting the northeast boundary of
WSA OR-3-195(ID-16-48B) between the Idaho-Oregon border and Three
Forks, Oregon. There are also non-federal lands surrounded by some
of the WSAs which are accessed by WSA boundary roads. These lands
include:
1. 640 acres state; 80 acres private between WSAs OR-3-195
(ID-16-48B) and ID-16-49A.
2. 560 acres state; 240 acres private between WSAs OR-3-195
(ID-16-48B), ID-16-48C and ID-16-53(NV-010-103A).
3. 360 acres private between ID-16-49A, 16-49D and 111(16)-49E.
G. GEOLOGY; MINERALS AND ENERGY
1. Geology
2.
The WSAs lie within a geological region known as the Owyhee
Uplands which encompass southeast Oregon, southwest Idaho and
northernmost Nevada. These uplands originated from basalt­rhyolite
volcanism during the Miocene Epoch (Tertiary Period)
between six and twenty-two million years ago.
The southern portion of the Owyhee Uplands through which
the Owyhee River has carved its canyons is characterized by an
extensive flat lying basalt plain stretching from the Bull Run
Mountains of Nevada to the Santa Rosa Mountains of Oregon. The
plain contains numerous basalt capped mesas, tables, buttes,
canyon rims, and valleys. This basalt cap consists of many thin
flows of fine-grained, vesicular alkaline-olivine basalt and
interbedded sedimentary units. The sedimentary units contain
basalt clasts, tuffaceous sands and gravels, ash beds, local
diatomite, and alluvial and fanglomeratic sediments. Beneath
the basaltic cap, the Owyhee River and its tributary streams
have exposed up to 1,000 feet of rhyolite and densely welded
tuffs. Lying below the rhyolite are several thousand feet of
latite and basalt flows.
The Pre-Tertiary (Paleozoic) rocks which lie under the
volcanics are unknown. Evidence suggests that the Owyhee Upland
area was part of a Late Paleozoic deposition basin indicating
the potential for metasedimentary and metamorphic rocks lying a
depth beneath the WSAs.
Mineral and Energy Potential
Energy and mineral resources throughout the WSAs were
evaluated through a geology-energy-mineral (GEM) contract with
TERRADATA. TERRADATA's findings and conclusions vary somewhat
from those of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries (DOGAMI) which conducted additional field studies in
Oregon under another BLM contract. The findings vary primarily
III-16
"
I e
I
I
f I
beeause of the different approaehes taken. TERRADATA used
mainly a literature researeh in gathering information, with a
restrieted amount of field verifieation. DOGAMI employed
literature researeh and plaeed speeial emphasis on geoehemieal
field work. Beeause there has been little attention given to .
mineral exploration or development in the subjeet lands in the
past, a relatively minor amount of information was available
through literature researeh. The studies of the southern Owyhee
Uplands in Oregon, Idaho and Nevada by TERRADATA indieate a
generally low favorability for the aeeumulations of most mineral
resourees (see Table III-4). However, geoehemieal studies in
Oregon have indieated a mueh higher favorability for eertain
mineral oeeurrenees in the same roek units.
No mining elaims are on reeord in any of the WSAs.
Within Idaho and Nevada, oeeurrenee of hard roek minerals
is not known. There are areas of dense faulting running
generally north-south through the area. These faulted areas
eould provide the requisite eonduits neeessary for mineralizing
solutions, however, there is no evidenee that a mineralization
proeess has oeeurred.
The field studies in Oregon, however, have indieated a
potential for the presenee of mineral resourees. The potential
for mineral oeeurrenee in WSA OR-3-195 is shown in Table III-5.
TABLE III-4
TERRADATA
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS AROUND THE OWYHEE RIVER,
OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO FOR GEM!/ RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Class!-
fieation
Commodity_ Area Level
Metals Entire GRid.! 2
Geothermal Entire GRA 1
Uranium/Thorium Entire GRA 1
Coal Entire GRA 2
Oil and Gas Entire GRA 1
Tar Sands/Oil Shale Entire GRA 1
Limestone Entire GRA 1
Bentonite Entire GRA 2
Diatomite Entire GRA 4
Clinoptiloli te Entire GRA 2
Paleontology Entire GRA 1
ESLs~/ None 1
1/ GEM= geology, energy and mineral.
2!
3! GRA = GEM Resouree Area inventory unit.
ESLs = edueational and seientifie loealities.
III-17
Confi-de
nee
Level
B
B
A
B
B
c
A
A
D
A
A
c
I
I
I
~
.'•,
'I
TABLE III-5
DOGAMI
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS WITHIN THE OWYHEE RIVER CANYON WSA OR-3-195,
MALHEUR COUNTY, OREGON FOR GEM RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Classi- Confi-fication
dence
Commodity Area Level Level Remarks
Metals Entire WSA 3 A Mercury
Part of WSA 3 c Gold, Silver & Tin
Entire WSA 2 c Manganese, Lead, Tin,
Gold, & Silver
Geothermal Entire WSA 3 B
Uranium/Thorium Entire WSA 3 c
Coal Entire WSA 2 B
Oil and Gas Entire WSA 3 B
Tar Sands/Oil Shale Entire WSA 2 B
Limestone Entire WSA 1 B
Bentonite Entire WSA 3 B
Diatomite Entire WSA 3 B
Zeolites Entire WSA 3 B
Legend:
Class 1-Lack of indications of favorability
Class 3-Moderate favorability
Class 2-Low favorability
Class 4-High favorability
Confidence Level A - Insufficient data or no direct evidence
Confidence Level B - Indirect evidence available
Confidence Level C - Direct evidence but quantitatively minimal
Confidence Level D - Abundant direct and indirect evidence
Oil, gas, and geothermal are the main energy potentials in
the WSAs. Because of youthful volcanism and above normal heat
flow, most of southeastern Oregon is generally considered
favorable for thermal waters for direct use heat application.
Smaller areas are favorable for high temperature geothermal
resources. However, no high temperature resource has been
identified in WSA OR-3-195. Warm springs pour into the Owyhee
River from both the east and west canyon walls in the vicinity
of Three Forks and for several miles upstream. The temperature
of these springs· is 40•c (80°F). Much of. the WSA lands have
been blanketed by oil and gas leases (see Table III-6). How­ever,
it is not known if favorable Paleozoic metamorphic or
meta-sedimentary rock strata exist at depth. Even if the
Paleozoic units exist as some evidence suggests, it is likely
that any associated hydrocarbons were driven off during the
Tertiary thermal episodes.
III-18
TABLE III-6
EXISTING OIL AND GAS LEASES!/
WSA
OR-3-195
ID-16-48B
ID-16-48C
ID-16-49A
ID-16-49D
ID-111(16)-49E
ID-16-52
ID-16-53
NV-010-103A
NV-010-106
TOTAL
Acreage
4,290
4,585
10,980
46,630
6,255
13,990
13,150
42,510
7,380
16,500
166,270
l/ Leased after the passage of FLPMA (Oct. 21, 1976). Lease

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

Owyhee
Canyonlands
Wilderness
Environmental .
lm pact
Statement
Draft
• •
-.
~ v
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
OREGON- IDAHO- NEVADA
1984
FEB 2 7 1~~ 8 ~.t -oolf
,, .
1
I
IN REPLY
fU~FEK TO:
•.
8500
Dear Reviewer:
3948 Development Avenue·
Boise, Idaho 83705
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Draft Owyhee Canyonlands
Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement.
The BLM·proposes to recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that 374,160
acres of public land in eight wilderness study areas (WSAs) are suitable for
wilderness designation and 64,467 acres are nonsuitabie for wilderne~s ·
designation. The WSAs are located along the Owyhee River in Malheur County,
Oregon; Owyhee County, Idaho; and Elko ~ounty, Nevada.
The draft document analyzes the environmental consequences of the proposal and
four alternatives ranging from no wilderness to all wilderness for the eight
WSAs. It also evaluates the BLM planning criteria and quality standards used
for determining the suitability or nonsuitability of wilderness designation on
the public lands.
3\
The public comment period wili continue to May ~1984. Written comments may
be submitted anytime during the comment period to the Bureau of Land Manage­ment,
Boise-District Office, 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83705.
Five public hearings have also been scheduled to receive public comments on
the proposed wilderness recommendations. Each hearing will be prec"eeded by an
optional "open house" s-ession to a:l:scuss the proposed" wildernes.s recommenda­tions,
followed by the formal "public hearing" to receive comments. Hearings
times and locations are shown on the back of this letter.
All public comments will receive consideration in preparation of the final EIS
and Wilderness Study Report.. The final EIS and Wilderness Study Report will
then be forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior and the President for
review and recommendation. uitimately, Congress will make· ·the "final decision
on whether any of the areas will be designated as wilderness.
For further information, please contact Ted Milesnick or John Benedict at this
office ((208) 334-1582).
Sincerely
Enclosures
'
f
'
'I
OREGON IDAHO
NEVADA
@)
. Blue
Mtn.
E.I.S. AREA
I· }
,
"' 2
.
'9_..
1-"'
OWYHEE CAN'YONLANDS WILDERNESS
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
MAP 1
@ .
Grasmere'
Riddle
~
·~~.
.0 \\'
l-l.S
.1'\\l­LlS"\
SUMMARY
The purpose of the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness EIS is to develop a
recommendation concerning the suitability of wilderness designation for
eight wilderness study areas (WSAs) along the Owyhee River where the
states of Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada join. The EIS was prepared in
conformance with the BLM Wilderness Study Policy and planning regulations
43 CFR 1600. The eight WSAs under consideration are:
Total Acresl/
WSA Acres Idaho Oregon Nevada
OR-3-195 (ID-16-48B); 214,380 33,700 180,680 0
Owyhee River Canyon
ID-16-48C; Little Owyhee River 24,600 24,600 0 0
ID-16-49A; Owyhee River-Deep 70,160 70,160 0 0
Creek
ID-16-49D; Yatahoney Creek 9,990 9,990 0 0
ID-111(16)-49E; Battle Creek 31,540 31,540 0 0
ID-16-52; Juniper Creek 13,150 13,150 0 0
(Upper Owyhee River)
ID-16-53 (NV-010-103A); South 50,352 42,510 0 7,842
Fork Owyhee River
NV-010-106; Owyhee Canyon 21,875 0 0 21,875
TOTAL 436,047 225,650 180,680 29,717
1/ Acreages previously published in intensive inventory decisions differ
from those of the wilderness study because of variations in map
projections and planimeter accuracy, and due to an inventory decision
(December 30, 1982) by the Secretary of the Interior which eliminated
WSA lands having mineral rights held by the State of Oregon.
The following issues have been identified for analysis in this EIS: the
impact of wilderness designation or nonwilderness designation on livestock
grazing, public access, wildlife populations, vegetation, watershed
values, mineral and energy development, wilderness values and the economic
impact to local livestock operators and local communities.
The five land management alternatives presented are developed based upon:
1. the issues of concern to the public and BLM managers,
2. ,the manageability of the WSAs as wilderness,
3. the relative wilderness values of the WSAs, and
4. the degree of conflict between competing resource values.
The acres recommended as suitable and nonsuitable in the five alternatives
are shown in the following table:
i
Proposed
Action Other Alternatives
All No Canyon-
Manageable Wilderness/ lands Wildlife All
WSA Wilderness No Action Wilderness Wilderness Wilderness
OR-3-195 172,095* 0 45,000 142,570* 214,380
(ID-16-48B)
ID-16-48C 24,600 0 6,000 8,460 24 '600
ID-16-49A 67,400* 0 18,000 55,530* 70,160
ID-16-49D 9,550 0 2,000 9,550 9,990
ID-111-49E 31,880* 0 2,200 26,380* 31,540
ID-16-52 11' 170 0 3,200 9,930 13 '150
ID-16-53 43,940 0 9,000 35,070 50,352
(NV-010-103A)
NV-010-106 13,525 0 1,600 0 21,875
Total Suitable 374,160 0 87,000 287,490 436,047
Total Nonsuitable 64,467 436,047 349,047 151,137 0
* Includes acreage outside the WSA boundaries.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The impacts from wilderness designation or nondesignation are similar
in each WSA. The summaries presented for each land management alterna­tive
refer to all WSAs unless specified.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action (All Manageable Wilderness Alterna­tive),
374,160 acres of BLM land in eight WSAs would have their
wilderness characteristics preserved under a Congressional wilderness
designation. Wilderness characteristics would be diminished on 63,267
acres of plateau. There ·.are 1,200 acres of canyonlands outside the
wilderness area which would continue to have their wilderness charac­teristics
maintained under an Owyhee River area of critical
environmental concern (ACEC).
On the 63,267 acres of plateau lands not designated, naturalness
and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude are expected
to decline because of rangeland development projects, increased
grazing use and motorized vehicle use, and potentially from mineral
and energy development.
Under wilderness, the WSAs' supplemental values would be pre­served,
including scenic, wildlife, vegetation and cultural values.
The wilderness area would provide representation of the rhyolitic
canyonlands/sagebrush-bunchgrass ecosystem (Sagebrush-Steppe system)
in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The ecological
condition of native vegetation would improve. The area would maintain
its undisturbed natural scenic beauty. Bighorn sheep habitat would be
protected from any encroachment and the bighorn population would
continue to grow. Historic and prehistoric archaeological sites would
ii
•!,
receive less disturbance and improved protection from recreation and
livestock grazing.
Primitive e~periences associated with river running and back
packing would remain the principal recreation opportunities in the
area. Semi-primitive motorized recreation use would be prohibited on
16.5 miles of roads and 77.4 miles of ways. This would cause some
hunting use to be displaced onto surrounding nonwilderness lands.
Boating and backpacking use is projected to increase to 13,000 user
days by the year 2002 while hunting use could increase to 2,400 user
days.
Wilderness designation would limit some livestock water develop­ments
and vegetation treatments, and hinder the full implementation of
grazing systems needed to improve the productivity of rangelands for
livestock grazing. Livestock use within the wilderness would be
limited to about the level occurring at time of designation. However,
the annual livestock use within affected allotments could increase
54,954 AUMs (225,698 AUMs to 280,652 AUMs) in 20 years because of
increased livestock use outside of the wilderness area.
All wilderness lands would be closed to mineral and energy
exploration and development, except for valid existing rights. Dam
construction would be prohibited. A 1/4 mile wide utility corridor
would be established along the Northwest Gas Pipeline.
Soil erosion potential would be reduced because of limitations on
livestock use, the improvement in vegetation cover, and lack of other
major soil disturbance activities such as mineral development.
Existing access and use of private and state inholdings would be
unaffected.
Wilderness designation would not significantly impact the
economic conditions of Malheur, Owyhee or Elko Counties.
No Wilderness/No Action' Alt.ernative
Under the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative, the WSAs would not
have their wilderness characteristics protected by a Congressional
wilderness designation. Instead, 287,000 acres within the WSAs would
be managed as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) of
199,000 acres and a bighorn sheep habitat management area (HMA) of
88,000 acres. The management objective of the ACEC is to protect
bighorn sheep habitat, scenic,quality, natural values and cultural
resources. The 1nanagement objective of the HMA is to protect bighorn
sheep habitat. Recreation use on 69,200 acres of canyonlands along
the Owyhee and South Fork Owyhee Rlver would be managed under the
Owyhee River Recreation Area Management Plan to preserve the four
resource values associated with the ACEC/HMA designation.
Though one of the principal objectives· of the ACEC/HMA is to
minimize human disturbance in bighorn sheep habitat, these desig­nations
would not prevent reductions in naturalness on the plateaus.
iii
The naturalness of the plateaus in the Idaho WSAs would be moderately
to significantly impacted by rangeland development projects (water
developments, brush control treatments and seedings) intended for the
benefit of livestock and wildlife. Increased forage utilization on
the WSA lands would reduce naturalness by giving the land a more
grazed appearance. Continued mineral and energy exploration could
lead to developments which would further reduce naturalness.
Increasing use of existing roads and ways combined with an overall
reduction in naturalness would result in a loss of primitive
recreation and solitude opportunities.on the plateaus.
River running and backpacking within the canyons (unless dams are
constructed) and hunting throughout the WSAs would remain the primary
recreation opportunities. Boating and backpacking use is expected to
reach 12,500 user days by the year 2002 while hunting should increase
to 2,900 user days. No roads or ways would be closed to motorized
recreation use.
Annual livestock use in affected allotments could increase by
83,273 AUMs (225,698 AUMs to 308,971 AUMs) in 20 years.
Increases in livestock use and continued motorized recreation
access within WSAs could slightly increase damage or loss of archaeo­logical
sites on the plateaus.
Increased forage utilization by livestock combined with rangeland
developments would also cause some loss of scenic quality.
The ecological condition of native plant communities would
improve with the implementation of grazing systems. However, seeding
of the plateaus to crested wheatgrass (a non-native species) could
cause widespread displacement of native plant communities. Soil
erosion potential would be reduced as vegetation cover improves on
both native vegetation and on seeded areas.
No lands would be closed to mineral and energy development,
however, stipulations would be imposed in the ACEC to protect bighorn
sheep habitat. Dam construction could occur in the Owyhee River
canyons.
Existing access and use of private and state inholdings would be
unaffected.
There would be no significant social or economic impacts.
Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative
Under the Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative, 87,000 acres would
be designated wilderness within the canyons of eight WSAs. About
198,800 acres of plateau and 2,800 acres of canyon would remain desig­nated
as a ACEC/HMA. Impacts would be similar to those described
under the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative except for the
following:
iv
1. Annual livestock use in affected allotments could increase by
83,213 AUMs in 20 years (225,698 AUMs to 308,911 AUMs).
2. Approximately 2.5 miles of roads and 3.5 miles of ways would be
closed to motorized recreation use. Recreation use would
increase as in the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative.
3. The canyons would be closed to mineral development and potential
dam construction.
Wildlife Wilderness Alternative
With the Wildlife Wilderness Alternative, 287,490 acres would be
designated as wilderness in a configuration similar to the existing
BLM ACEC/HMA designations. Impacts would· be similar to those of the
Proposed Action except an additional 86,670 acres would be open to
rangeland development, motorized recreation use, and potential energy
and mineral development. With the additional acreage excluded from
designation, the annual livestock use in affected allotments could
increase 55,356 AUMs in 20 years (225,698 AUMs to 281,054 AUMs).
There would be 15.8 miles of roads and 50.8 miles of ways closed
to motorized recreation use. Recreation use is projected to be the
same as in the Proposed Action.
All Wilderness Alternative
In the All Wilderness Alternative 436,047 acres would be desig­nated
as wilderness. Impacts would be similar to those in the
Proposed Action except 61,887 more acres would be designated. Of this
acreage, 64,107 acres could have their wilderness characteristics
compromised by the continued use of livestock management developments,
external influences from adjacent roads and rangeland developments,
and from potential unauthorized ORV use. Existing cherry stem roads
would not be closed to motorized recreation use. Though 104.3 miles
of ways would be closed, the continued use of cherry stem roads could
lead to unauthorized ORV use which would reduce naturalness on
surrounding wilderness lands. Use of the roads would also disrupt
solitude and primitive recreation opportunities. Because of continued
cherry stem road access, less hunting use is expected to be displaced.
Hunting use could increase to 2,600 user days while boating and hiking
could increase to 13,000 user days.
The annual livestock use in affected allotments could increase by
43,583 AUMs in 20 years (225,698 AUMs to 269,281 AUMs).
v
DRAFT
OWYHEE CANYONLANDS WILDERNESS EIS
Table of Contents
Pa_g_e No.
SumtARY •.••.••..•••.••••..•••••••..•••••..••.••••• , .•••••.•••.. i
CHAPTER I: PURPOSE AND NEED •.••.••..•••••••••.••..•.••.••••••. I-1
A. Introduction ......................................... . I-1
B. Purpose and Need •...................•................•
C. The BLM Planning Process .•...................•....•...
D. Planning Issues and Concerns .................•...•..••
Planning Criteria and Quality Standards •••••••••••••
Issues ............................................. .
E. Formulation of Alternatives .......................... .
F. Other Considerations ................................. .
Related EIS and Planning Recommendations ••••••••••••
Wilderness Study Report and Mineral Surveys •••••••••
CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ••••••••
A. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives •••••••
1. Proposed Action (All Manageable Wilderness
Alternative) ................................... .
2. No Wilderness/No Action Alternative ••••••••••••••
3. Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative ••.••••••••••••
4. Wildlife Wilderness Alternative ••••••••••••••••••
5. All Wilderness Alternative •••••••••••••••••••••••
B. Other Alternatives Considered ..•......•....•...•..•..•
c. Relationship of Alternatives to National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Goals •••••••••••••••
D. Summary of Environmental Consequences ...........•..•..
CHAPTER III: DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ••••••••••••••
A. Wilderness Character ................................. .
1. Wilderness Characteristics ....•..•......•........
a. Naturalness ......................... • • .. • • • •
I-1
I-2
I-2
I-2
I-4
I-6
I-8
I-8
I-9
II-1
II-1
II-1
II-6
II-9
II-10
II-11
II-12
II-12
II-13
III-1
III-1
III-1
III-1
b. Soli tude Opportunities ..................... . III-2
vi
c. Primitive Recreation Opportunities ••••••••••
d. External Influences ........................ .
2. Supplemental Wilderness Values •••••••••••••••••••
a. Scenic Values .............................. .
b. Vegetation (Ecological & Scientific) Values •
c. Wildlife Values .......... ~ ................. .
d. Cultural Values ............................ .
Page No.
III-3
III-4
III-5
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-9
B. Recreation ............................................ III-9
C. Livestock Grazing ..................................... III-11
D. Water •••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••• III-14
E. Soils •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •• III-15
F. Lands •••••••••••• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 • III-15
G. Geology; Minerals and Energy •••••••••••••.•••••••••••• III-16
H. Economics ............................................. III-20
CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ••••• 0 ••••••••• 0 0 •••••••
A. Wilderness Character ................................. .
1. Wilderness Characteristics ••••••••••••••.••••••••
2. Supplemental Values ............................. .
a. Scenic Values .............................. .
b. Vegetation Values .......................... .
c. Wildlife Values ............................ .
d. Cultural Values ............................ .
B. Recreation ............................................ .
IV-1
IV-1
IV-1
IV-6
IV-6
IV-7
IV-8
IV-9
IV-10
C. Livestock Grazing ..................................... IV-14
D. Water .................................................. IV-19
E. Soils .................................................. IV-19
F. Lands .................................................... IV-21
G. Minerals and Energy ................................... IV-21
H. Economics ............................................. IV-21
I. Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity •• f ••••••• IV-23
J. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment
of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-23
vii
Page No.
CHAPTER V: OTHER DATA FOR ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION •••••••••• V-1
A. Criterion #1: Evaluation of Wilderness Values •••••••• V-1
B· Criterion 112: Manageability .......................... v-7
c. Quality Standards ..................................... V-8
CHAPTER VI: CPOAORRTDICINIPAATTIOIONN, C•O•N••SI•S•T•E•N•C•Y•,• •A•N•D• •P•U•B•L••IC• •••••••••••••• VI-1
A. Coordination and Consultation ••••••••••••••••••••••••• VI-1
B· Consistency ........................................... VI-1
c. Public Participation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• VI-1
D. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom
Draft was Sent •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• VI-3
LIST OF PRINCIPAL PREPARERS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P-1
GLOSSARY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• G-1
REFERENCES
..................................................... R-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A- Summary of Wilderness Character of WSAs ••••••• A-1
Appendix B - ProPpoorsteiodn P orof jeAcftf eDcteevde loAplmloetnmtse nwtsi th•i•n• •W••SA• ••••••• B-1
Appendix C - Maximum Livestock Use Foregone With Wilder­ness
Designation by Affected Allotment •••••• C-1
INDEX •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• X-1
viii
Page No.
List of Maps
Map 1 - General Location Map
Map 2 - Proposed Action (All Manageable Wilderness
Alternative)
Map 3 - No Wilderness/No Action Alternative
Map 4 - Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative
Map 5 - Wildlife Wilderness Alternative
Map 6 - All Wilderness Alternative
Map 7 - Adjoining Canyonlands
Map 8 - Ecosystem 3130-49
Map 9 - MSA
Map 10 - Geographic Distribution
The general location map is located on the page
preceeding the summary (page i). All other maps are
located at the enq of the document.
List of Tables
Table I-1
Table Il-l
Table II-2
Table II-3
Table II-4
Table II-5
Table II-6
Table II-7
Table III-1
Table III-2
Table III-3
Table III-4
- WSAs Within the Owyhee Canyonlands
Wilderness EIS ............................. I-1
- Proposed Action - Acres Recommended
Suitable/Nonsuitable as Wilderness ••••••••• Il-l
-Proposed Project Developments by WSA ••••••••• II-4
- No Wilderness/No Action Alternative -
Acres Recommended as Nonsuitable ••••••••••• II-7
- Canyonlands Wilderness Alternative - Acres
Recommended Suitable/Nonsuitable as
Wilderness .. •· ...... ~ ......... .- ........ •·· .. II:-10
- Wildlife Wilderness Alternative - Acres
Recommended Suitable/Nonsuitable as
Wilderness ................................. II-11
- All Wilderness Alternative - Acres
Recommended Suitable as Wilderness ••••••••• II-12
-Comparative Impact Summary ••••••••••••••••••• II-14
- Owyhee River Carrying Capacities Within WSAs • III-11
-Affected Grazing Allotments •••••••••••••••••• III-12
-Land Ownership Within WSAs ••••••••••••••••••• III-15
- Classification of Lands Around the Owyhee
River, Owyhee County, Idaho for GEM
Resource Potential (TERRADATA) •••••••••••••• III-17
Table III-5 -Classification of Lands Within the Owyhee
River Canyon WSA OR-3-195, Malheur County,
Oregon for GEM Resource Potential •••••••••• III-18
Table III-6- Existing Oil and Gas Leases •••••••••••••••••• III-19
Table IV-1 - Estimated Percentages of Each WSA Which
Could Show Reductions in Wilderness
Characteristics ............................ IV-6
Table IV-2 -Recreation- Summary Table ••••••••••••••••••• IV-13
Table IV-3 - Current and 20-Year Livestock Use Within
Affected Allotments •••••••••••••••••••••••• IV-15
ix
"
II
Page No.
Table IV-4 - Current and 20-Year Livestock Use Within
WSA Boundaries .••..••.......••....••..•••.. IV-17
Table IV-5
Table V-1
Table V-2
Table V-3
Table V-4
Table VI-1
- Maximum Livestock Use Foregone With
Wilderness Designation by WSA •••••••••••••• IV-18
-Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem Representation •••• V-4
-Proximity of Wilderness to Boise, Idaho •••••• V-5
- Existing or Potential Wilderness Areas in
Oregon, Idaho and Nevada ••••••••••••••••••• V-6
- Manageabiity Adjustments for WSAs •••••••••••• V-9
-Public Participation in EIS Scoping Process •• VI-1
X
I H!l~dYH~
~
0
rt
0
o'
'<
>-l
""" :! of I& CR-3-195,
NV-Q1D-106, & ID-16-49A, 16-52 & 16-
53 (NI'-l.ementation of gtazi'l! S)'StEIIIS
with lfm:ltations on grazing use
levels & raq:elao:l clevel.qeents.
lhturalness, 9:>litu:ie & Jrl.mttive
recreation reiu::ed on o:adldemess
aress becalse of increased mtor!zed
vehicle use, 1an:l treatJienl: p:ojects
(I.da!D l&s), ID:reased grazf.'l! use
J.eo.>els (WSA CR-3-195) & additional
raq:elao:l develqmmts. llineral &
eoetgy clevel.qeent cruld also poten­tially
reduce wilderness charac­teristics
on rr::odldemess areas.
TABLE n-7. OM'A!WIVE JMPACr ru~tW«
(Narrative refers to all 1&\s unless specified)
No W!Meroess/No Actloo
Alternative
Wl.lderness cnaracteristi.cs within
88,200 acres of caeyon in eight lo5As
maiotained by 11M NZC/IMA designa­tion.
Wilderness characteristics on
198,800 acres of platew wlthin MJlC/
1MA in alll&s, except NV-n (WSA NV-Il in I& NV-litude & prfm:t­tive
recreation wu1d be as
described no:ler All !Image­able
Wilderress Alternative.
All Wilileroess
Alternative
Wilderness characteritics main­tainEd
on 436,047 acres in ei8Jlt
lo5As. tb loss of wilderness
character in mv ~. ~r,
{:Otential to enhance wilderness
characteristics reduced becaJse
roads oot closed to recreation
use. Also, tb! failure to
acquire state & private in­h::>
ldings could result in !ncan­pitibl.
e uses & aiditional access
routes Wrlch could imp:t!r
wilderress characteristics in
'p)rtions of tiE ~.
........
..I. .
"'
All~W~
Alternative
Scerdc Values
TABlE II-7. aMPARATlVE IMPN::r !UtWrl
(Narrative refers tn all l&s unless specified)
N:> Wilderness/No Action
Alternative
Catcyon1an1s Wilderness
Alternative
Wildlife Wilderness
Alternative
All Wildetness
Altemative
Scerdc quality In all el8ht l&s would not be slgnificantly affected by 8DJ of the five alternatives mder curre0t -t objectives. Visual Resource~ (VRM) mder each
altemati"' cs1ls for mrlntalnill! a high degree of oaWrsl scenic quality (VIM Class I or II) In the 1&8' canyons & Interior plst:Ba> areas. Even unler the less restrictive VIM Cless
III & IV aress of the WSAs' peripheral plstesus, extensive rargeland devel~ would only slightly recb:e scenic quality. OOy the JDSSibiity of damS on the Owyhee River, extensive
mineral d~t or high volt"!!' powerl.lne installation pemdtted In future plami1l! efforts unler the N:> Wilderness/No Action Altemati'"' would serirusly degrade scenic qualitY of
the ws.\s. .
Vegetation -
374,160 acres of the myolite
canya>lsnds/sagebrush-lu>c:lwass
ea:syst
Wilderness/No Action Alternative would not p wildlife habltats & populations tn reservoir consttuct!on nor devel- of potential mineral & enetgy
resources. · ' '
....
H
..I.. .
"'
All ~ Wilderness
Alternative
Cultural Values -
The closure of 'A:lys & sane roads to
public I!Dtorized use & limitations
on increases in livestock grazi~
.wid redu::e damage "' cultural
sites within the wilderness area.
Recreation -
TAmE II-7. a:MPARATIVE IMPACI &JtftiRY
(Narrative refers to all W5As unless specified)
lb Wilderness/No Action
Alternative
Within the river canyons, cultural
resources wu1d receive protection
t.Mer the Owyhee River Recreation
Managa:Ient Plan. Ch platealS, cultural
resources tDJl.d deteriorate at a
slightly ire:reased rate dt:e to in­creased
livestock grazirg & greater
mtorized recreation use. Dan con­st:
n.£tion ca.lld flood sites within
canyons.
Canyonlsnds Wilderness
Alternative
Within the canyors, cultural
values would be protected. On tiE
plateaus, ardlaeological sites
wu1d deteriorate at an increase:l
rate as in the No Wildemess/No
Action Alternative.
Wildlife Wilderness
Alternative
The closure of ways & sane
roads to ptDlk mtorized use &
limitations on increases of
livestock grazing .wid redu::e
danage 1D cultural sites within
tiE wilderness area.
~.
All Wllderness
Alternative
The closure of ""}'S to public
rootorized use & llml.ts pla::e:i on
increases in livestock grazirg
.wid redu::e damage ID cultural
sites in the wilderness area.
leavi~ roais within tte wUder­rrss
area open to p.lblic liDto­rizei
use would salBroftat offset
this positive !mpect.
Total recreation use of the WSAs would irerease by aboot tiE sam aJIDmt (by tlE :year 2002) tm:ler each alternative. Total use is expected to ~ equally in eadl ~ on a per a::re
basis. Boatirl! & biclqnckifll use slnuld increase ID a grester degree thsn h.ntirl!. Specific :Impacts by alternative are as foll=l, .
Physicsl & social settirl! necessazy
for outst.and:i.q; primitive recreation
""P"riences enhanced en 37 4 ,160
acres in eight t&s by wilderness
designation. Pr.imitive recreation
opplrtunities within 1,200 acres of
river ca-qyon in WSA lf./-Q1Q-106 nain­tained
by ACPr. ~t. SEmi­primitive
trOtorized recreation ex-­periences
lcet due to the closure of
16.5 miles of roOOs & 77.4 miles of
ways. Vehicle route closures wo..tl.d
restrict h.ntiq:; access an::l displace
hwtirg use to surroun:H.q:; m~
wildene;s areas. E;Kist~ mtorized
recreation access into the canyons
~-~
Primitive recreation opp>rtunities
witlrl.n 88,200 acres of river canyoos:
in eight WSAs - by llUI HJ'£1
lMA designation. Prlm!tive & seni­tr:
lmitive mtorized recreation oppJr­tmities
on 198,000 acres of plateau
in seven W'SAs maintained (platea.Js of
1& NIHJlQ-106 not irclt>led in ACEC).
M:>torized recreation use al~ to
continE on all exist~ roads & ways
within A(N;/J:MA. 149,047 acres of mn­ACPr./!
MA lao! open ID mrestticted
aotorized recreation use. l'btorized
access to S.F. ~e River in WSA.
NV-{)lQ-106 cculd 1B improved by recon­struction
of '1\.l:llve Mile J{oad. Total
lmpicts s:fmilar to tbJse described
under lb Wlldemass/No Acticn
Alternative except primitive rec­reation
oppJrtuoities of river
canyons preserved by 87, ()(X) acre
wilderness designation & 1,200
acre Ater boatifll & luntirl!
~ affected as in All
Primitive recreation opp::~rtuni­ties
1lBint:a:lnOO on 436,04 7 EK:res
in eight WSAs. Semi-primitive
untorizEd recreation use a11.cxe1
to c:ontinE en 38.25 miles of
road. ircl»lifll the boating
access roa:ls into t:re river c.an-­yons.
Seni-primf.tive Jtr>torize:l
recreation use opplrb.mities
lost on 104.3 miles of ways. lb
lanls .wid be """' to oores­trictel
mtorizei recreation
use. Roo:1s ~ ~n in
mAs would result in less dis­p!
acaDent of hntifll uae. 'lbtal
recreation use could increase to
.-. -- -~~ ~- ~ - ~~.--.- - ·-~~.--.~ --·--· ~ ~ ..._
........
..I . -.j
All ~ Wilderness
Alterriative
Recreation-for
.tdte.eter boatiq: maffectEd.
Mltorized access to S.F. CMyhee
River in WSA N\1-01()..106 could be
~by reconstruction of 1\Elve
Mile Road. 63,267 acres of oon­deslgnatEd
p1atew lands open to
unrestricted ootorized recreation
use. 'lbtal recreation use cCJUl.d
increase to 15,400 user days by the
year 2002.
Lh>!Stock Grazi~ -
TAILl! II-7. ! year 2002.
1m comtructioo sl.oq: the Owyhee
River ~ cont1me m threaten
boat!q:, beckpadd~ & lultiq:
opportmities. Enensive ""l'fi'
Improvements rutside the Amc could
degrade pdm:Ltive & san:L,r!ml.tive
recreation opp:n:tunities in IdaiD' s
lEAs. Potential mineral arxl energy
&!vel.CipDent. cruld reduce recreation
opportwities througOOut tl>! l&\s.
Canyonlands Wildemess
Altemative
Wildlife Wildemess
Alternative
Mmageab1e Wil&!mess Alterna­tive.
148,337 acres of mn­designatEd
p!ateaJ lands open
tD t.nrestricte:l llXltorized rec­reation
use. 'lbtal recreation
use cruld io::rease to 15,400
user days by the year 2002.
All Wilderness
Alternative
15,600 user days ~ the jear
2002. The failure to acquire
state & private intx>ldi.~ COJ1d
result in a:lditional access
rtutes & :lncaupatible uses \hich
WQJJ.d redoce priml.tive rec­reation
opplrtlmities in
p>rtions of tle \o&\s.
Wilderness designation WOIJJ.d. redu::e tl>! capab1lity of gr~ syst""' within affectEd allo_,.s to optimize increases in grazi~ use through better livestock distrirutioo & forage
utilization. '1he level of livestock use within wilderness areas WJUI.d rena1n at or near the l.evei of use ocrurrirg at the tine of designation. Uvestodc use levels cuts1de of
w:lldemess area booodarles are expected to Jn:rease becaJse of ne~ project devel.oplent, vegetation treat:nents ani ~ ra~ coniition. 'nE potential ~rease in livestock use is
expected to ocrur \Dder each alternative is sb:lwn belcw:
Total livestock use within allot­l!
elts affectEd by w:lldemess desig­nation
of the eight WSAs could in­crease
by 54,954 AUla (225,698 AUla
to 280,652 AUla).
Water-
Wildernes~ designation !oJOUl.d prevent
the construction of dams to store
lrBter for irrigation.
Total livest:odt use within allotments
affectEd by wilderness designation
could fncrease by 83,273 AIMs (225,698
AIMs to 308,971 AIMs).
Ims co.Jl.d be constructed if rivers
are oot 1nclu:Jed within the National
Wild & Scenic Rivers Systan.
lbtal livestock '!"" wltin allot­ments
affectEd by wilderness de­signation
could fncrease by 83,213
AIMs (225,698 AIMs to 308,911
Allis).
Sane as All ""'-"'>le Wildernes~
Alternative.
Total livestock use within
allone>ts affectEd by wilder­ness
designation catld increase
by 55,356 AIMs (225,698 AilM3 to
281,054 AIMs).
Sme as All "'"-able Wilder­ness
Alternative.
lbtal livestock use wlthin
allotments affected by wll&r­ress
designation COJl.d increase
by 43,583 AIMs (225,698 AIMs to
269,281 AIMs).
Sane .. All ~eable Wilder­ness
Alternative.
H
'.i.'. CD
All ~I.e Wilderness
Alternative
Soils -
Potential for soU d:Lsturl::ance &
eros!.oo .oould be redu:al on 375,360
acres. Within canyons,. mln:fm1zirg
llvestcxk use would help stabilize
lrlghly ero:lable str""" bstil.ding:; wou1d not be sigrl.ficantly affectEd by any alternative unless tbare is a change in the use of de laMs. Non-fe!Eral
lan:i use com:lderations for each alternative are as fol.l.aws:
Existill! road """""" to & use of
~E"ivate & state lands would re:ra1n.
Stste lsrds within wilderness coold
be acquire:! by e>bange. Williq:
private lsnlamers coold· negotiate
easarents or cooperative agreerents
with tb> B!M.
llfrersls & Eneigy -
Within the MJ!£, state lands could be
acquire:! by exdlange & w1lli'1! private
lardomers cruld negotiate easeDmts
or cooperative agree:tents with BIM.
Exist~ access & use wuld be
retained.
SaDe ss All Manageable Wilderness
Alternative.
SaDe as All Manageable Wilder­ness
Alternative.
The morsbllley for mioersl srd enetgy develcpoont is c:oosidere:l low. A"f potential develcpoont ,...Ud be affecte:l as follows:
374,160 acres, except for valid
exlstii1! rlg!ts, .oould be withdrawn
from all fonns of appropriation
Minernl activicy & develcpoont coold
'COlltin.Je. Il:Ds & nBrl utility corri­dors
coold be allowe:l ln t"' AOlC/ItiA
87 ,()(() acres, except for valid
exlstit:£ rights, woo1.d 1:e witb­draro
fran all follllS of
1f37 ,490 acres, eKCept for valid
existl'1! rigPts, would be with­dram
fran all fotms of
State lsrd ....ud oot be acquire:!
& e.a.sarents or cooperative
~-· ....ud not be nego­tiatEd
fran private lao:lriation mder the ml~
laws . Dalrs cru1.d. not be con­structed
& additional utility
corridors cru1.d. not be establ­llshed.
All Wilderness
Alternative
apprq>riatinn mder the ml~
laws. Il9m3 cru1.d. not re con­structed.
lb utility corridors
could be established, including
tte corridors alOI"@: the Nortlr­"""
t Pipeline.
1m followi1¥J figures in.iicate that all alternatives are predicted to prodtx!e increases lofdch are affected only slightly ~ tOO wilderness acreage lei~ recameMed. Livestock income
ani aq:>loyiiEilt figures are for the entire affected allobnents. Recreation 1ncane & efi\'l.O)'!IEilt figures are only for the rBAs.
Amual Livestock
Incam $2.8 mlllion $3.1 mlllion $3.1 mlllion $2.8 mlllion $2.7 mlllion
% Chaq:e Fran Present +24% -87% -87% +24% +19%
Anrual Recreation
Incam $49l,COO $504,COO $504,COO $49l,COO $497,000
% Chaq:e fran Present 273% +283% +283% -+>!73% +277%
LivestnloynEnt 79 87 87 79 76
% Chaq:e fran Present +2>1: -88% +38% +2q5% +21%
Recreation Related
Elq>l.oynEnt 21 21 21 21 21
% Chaq:e fran Present -807% -807% +307% +307% -807%
Total Anrual Incane $3.3 mlllion $3.6 mlllion '):!.6 mlllion $3.3 mlllion $3.2 mlllion
% ~e Fran Present -88% +60% +60% +38% +33%
Total Elq>l.oynEnt 100 108 108 100 97
% Chaq:e Pran Present -+47% -159% -159% -+47% -+43%
...,...._ "';'..-
Ill H!I.LdYH:)
CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The description of the environment covers those resources which are
significantly impacted or were identified as significant issues or con­cerns
by the public, BLM and other agencies. Resource character~stics
within all WSAs are very similar; therefore, resource descriptions refer
to all WSAs unless otherwise specified. Specific resource charac­teristics
of the WSAs are addressed under each resource heading.
A. WILDERNESS CHARACTER
The BLM completed a wilderness inventory of roadless areas along
the upper Owyhee River in 1982 using procedures outlined in the BLM
Wilderness Inventory Handbook (1978). From this inventory, eight
wilderness study areas (WSAs) were identified. Each of the eight
WSAs contain mandatory wilderness characteristics (size; naturalness;
solitude and/or primitive recreation opportunities) and supplemental
wilderness values which meet the wilderness criteria established by
the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Appendix A).
1. Wilderness Characteristics
The Owyhee River WSAs are adjoining areas encompassing 681
square miles (436,047 acres) of the high desert plateaus and
canyonlands of Oregon, Idaho and Nevada. Each WSA consists of
flat to gently rolling sagebrush plateaus lying at elevations of
4000 to 5500 feet. These plateaus are sharply dissected by
miles of deep, meandering canyons. The WSAs stretch almost
continuously along 260 miles of canyons varying in depth from
200 to 1200 feet. The WSAs are separated from one another only
by several primitive (low-standard) roads and small isolated
parcels of state and/or private land.
a. Naturalness:
Each of the WSAs possess a high degree of naturalness.
Imprints of man are present in each WSA but they are sub­stantially
unnoticeable. Imprints are widely scattered and
consist of:
1) range improvements including small stock ponds or
reservoirs, barbed wire fences, and water troughs
associated with springs,
2) primitive vehicle routes including 2-wheel tracks
(ways) and minimally constructed cherry stem roads,
and
3) ruins or remnants of old log or stone buildings of
historic and cultural value.
III-1
,,I
.,.,
I
!
I,
i
, •I
t !
·q
J l
l
1 t
I
(.'
I'
"' ['
I
!!
I
I !I
,II
b.
Most imprints occur on the plateaus and consist of
small stock ponds, many of which are serviced by primitive
roads or ways. Within the canyons, imprints are limited to
historic ruins and the external influences of private ranch
sites and WSA boundary roads which supply access to or
across the rivers. The ranch sites and/or boundary roads
which lie between WSAs are encountered from one to three
days apart while. floating the rivers.
The location, number and relative distribution of
man's imprints make for infrequent visual encounters.
Visual contact with range developments and vehicle routes
is extremely limited and of minimal impact because of the
limited soil and vegetation disturbance associated with
their construction, the small size and/or low profile of
the developments, and the presence of topographic and/or
vegetation screening. On the plateaus, imprints are
generally obscured by sagebrush or small changes in topo­graphy
within one hundred feet to several hundred yards.
In the canyons, meandering walls and talus slopes screen
WSA boundary roads at very close distances. Field studies
conducted in 1981 documented that less than eight percent
of any WSA is minimally impacted by man's imprints. The
amount of visual impact from man's imprints within any one
WSA is shown in Appendix A.
Solitude Opportunities:
Each of the WSAs possesses natural features which
provide outstanding opportunities for solitude. When the
WSAs are considered as a group, the overall opportunities
for solitude are of exceptionally high quality.
The outstanding .opportunities for solitude in each WSA
are attributed to the isolated, intimate seclusion of
canyonlands and the viewing of hundreds to thousands of
square miles of vast, open, seemingly undisturbed desert
plateau lands and distant mountain ranges.
The canyons of the WSAs are typically deep, narrow and
very meandering. In many areas, sheer walls rise directly
from the_ river beds to the rimrock. Canyon sections with
sheer walls are frequently interrupted by steep talus
slopes. In other areas, talus slopes are found above an
inner canyon of vertical rock faces.
The meandering character of the canyon walls and river
beds provide excellent topographic screening between
visitor groups traveling close together. River level views
up and down the canyons are limited to .25 to .5 miles.
The depth of the canyons combined with limited viewing
distances creates a tremendous sense of seclusion or
separation from the rest of the world.
III-2
The length of canyons involved in each WSA allows
visitor groups to readily find campsites which are out of
sight and sound of other groups. Furthermore, the length
of canyons provides ample time and distance for visitor
groups to adjust their rates of travel and campsite
locations to avoid interaction with other groups while
floating or hiking. Along the 178 miles of river within
the WSAs, there are hundreds of campsites. There are also
many campsites in the tributary canyons. Because of the
characteristics of these canyons, outstanding opportunities
for solitude can be maintained by simply controlling the
rate of visitor entry into the canyons.
The frequent breaks in the sheer canyon walls
encourage recreation use of the surrounding plateau areas.
The many talus slopes invite climbs to the rimrock for
scenic canyon views and expansive vistas of plateau lands.
From many high points on the plateaus, one can see hundreds
to thousands of square miles of vast open spaces seemingly
untouched by man stretching eastward from the Steens
Mountains in Oregon to Juniper Mountain in Idaho, and
southward to the Bull Run Mountains of Nevada. These vast
open spaces instill a sense of complete separation from
civilization. After leaving the plateaus and returning to
a secluded camp among the narrow canyon walls, one is aware
that solitude or isolation has been achieved.
c. Primitive Recreation Opportunities:
The intrinsic natural features which provide out­standing
opportunities for solitude also contribute to
outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined
recreation in all WSAs but WSA ID-16-48C.
The canyonlands and plateaus provide exceptionally
scenic natural features (see Scenic Quality) and a
diversity of rugged landforms. These features attract
people interested in hunting, backpacking and river
running, and associated secondary activities of sight­seeing,
outdoor photography, wildlife viewing, botanical
studies and fishing. Because of the quality of these
secondary activities (which are associated with supple­mental
wilderness values), river running opportunities are
of exceptionally high quality and considered of national
significance.
The miles of canyons, their diversely and severely
eroded rock landscapes, their steep slopes, and the
dominance of subdued brown and red rock all combine to
create a sense of isolation or solitude; thereby enhancing
the primitive recreation experience. Visitors traveling in
or near the canyons are constantly aware of the forces of
nature that have formed the severely eroded landscapes.
Floating or hiking along the rivers and tributary streams
III-3
I.
,,,
1
I' II
1
,1
I
"I !· d.
gives one a sense of participation in the movements of a
natural force.
The challenge and excitement of whitewater rapids as
well as several mandatory portages of rock falls add
significantly to the boating experience. Hiking the rugged
canyons and plateaus without the aid of established trails
also provides a more natural and arduous recreational
challenge which heightens the primitive experience.
The numerous talus slopes of the canyons encourage the
exchange of recreation use between the rivers and plateaus.
Because travel across sagebrush plateaus could generally
result in a sense of monotony, recreational use of the
plateau areas would tend to concentrate near the canyon
rims. These rimrock areas of the plateaus often offer less
arduous hiking conditions than those in the canyons and
provide numerous opportunities for spectacular vistas of
the canyons below. The area of use on the plateaus is
likely to be fairly wide in many of the WSAs in Idaho due
to the very meandering character of the canyon rimrock and
the presence of major side drainages. These natural
features encourage travel at greater distances from the
rimrock because of easier, more straight forward hiking
conditions. Furthermore, since the canyon system can be
seen at greater distances on many plateau areas due to
downsloping terrain, visitors can enjoy vistas at greater
distances. Hiking on the plateaus also provides an
opportunity to experience vast, open spaces stretching into
the distant horizon. Therefore, many of the plateau areas
have outstanding primitive experiences equivalent to those
of the canyons.
Because of the miles of canyons available and the
large size of the plateaus, quality primitive recreation
experiences can last several days to a week or more in each
WSA and up to several weeks in the WSA complex.
The only WSA lacking in outstanding primitive
recreation opportunities is WSA ID-16-48C. This WSA is
lacking in outstanding opportunities because of its
relatively low scenic quality, a lack of diversity in
landform, restricted mobility between the canyons and
plateaus, and few opportunities for recreation activities.
Though this WSA possesses less than outstanding primitive
recreation values, it has a high degree of naturalness and
has outstanding opportunities for solitude.
External Influences:
The most significant external influence affecting the
WSAs is frequent low elevation flights by military
aircraft. The entire southwest corner of Idaho has been
established as a military operations area (MOA). This MOA
III-4
is used far training military p~lats in low elevation,
subsonic flight in mostly fighter-bomber type aircraft.
Numerous fighter-bomber flights per day occur over
differe~t flight patterns at elevations as low as 100 feet
above the surface of the plateaus. 'Daily low elevation
flights of B-52 bombers also occur over WSA lands in
Oregon. Due to the variation in flight patterns and
schedules over this large area, ,impacts upon the solitude
to visitors varies greatly from day to day and week to
week. At times ~ircraft can be seen and/or heard flying
all day. Other time,s 0ne can travel for several days and
not .see or hear a jet.
2. Supplemental Wilderness Values
The WSAs are rich in supplemental 'wilderness values,
including scenic, ecological, scientific, wildlife and cultural
values. The supplemental values contribute significantly to
the overall quality of the WSAs' wilderness character.
a. Scenic Values:
The canyonlands of the Owyhee River system are of
exceptionally high scenic quality. The combination of
moving water, colorful sheer ciiffs, gras,s covered talus
slopes, and blue sky combine to create a dramatic stark
beauty which totally envelopes the visitor. In places
reddish-brown cliffs drop hundreds of feet into the water.
These fractured, blocky rock monoliths are tinted with
brilliant green, yellow and orange microflora. Near the
base of the cliffs, water sometimes seeps from the frac­tures
to nourish small, lush, clinging, deep green plant
communities. The monoliths are frequently topped with a
multitude of diversely eroded spires. The sheer rock walls
often give way to steep slopes covered with a mosaic of red
rock rubble and subdued green and yellow sagebrush and
grasses.
All of the WSAs' canyons possess this spectacular
scenic grandeur with the exception of WSA ID-16-48C. The
canyon or the East Little Owyhee River does not possess the
diversity in color, texture and landform which are common
place in the other WSAs.
The plateaus also add to the scenic quality of all
WSAs. Deep blue sky often filled with scattered low
hanging clouds ~ominates over a vast, open terrain
blanketed with subdued green and yellow vegetation. In the
spring, the subdued colors are sprinkled with brilliant
blue, yellow and white flowers. In the far distance, snow
capped mountains can be seen stretching along the horizon.
III-5
~
,,'I
I
,,'
I
' l'
l
.l ~l '
' '' 'I
II
I
j
i i'
I
I I'
'1l1 II;
I'
,f 'i
' I
' ;
I
I
"
I
\,
b. Vegetation (Ecological and Scientific) Values:
The upper Owyhee River system lies within a broad
regional landform and vegetation classification known as
the Intermountain Sagebrush Province/Sagebrush Steppe
Ecosystem (Bailey-Kuchler, 1966). Within the WSAs, the
ecosystem can be more accurately defined as a rhyolite
canyonlands/sagebrush-bunchgrass ecosystem.
The canyonlands are generally comprised of about 70%
rhyolitic and basaltic rock outcrop, 10% rock rubble
(talus), 15% river bottomlands and 5% riparian areas. The
most dominant plant .species on the landscape is big sage­brush.
Basin big sagebrush is commonly found on the canyon
bottoms while Wyoming big sagebrush occupies the dryer
slopes of the canyons. Pure stands of Idaho fescue and
bluebunch wheatgrass often occupy the steep slopes, with
Idaho fescue being more abundant in sheltered, moister
habitats. In WSA OR-3-195(ID-16-48B) there are widely
scattered junipers on the slopes of the canyons. In the
moister, more sheltered areas of most WSAs, there are small
stands of juniper. Juniper trees are more abundant in the
Owyhee River Canyon below Three Forks, Oregon. Hackberry
is also found scattered along the canyon bottoms. The
vegetation in the canyons is mostly in good ecological
condition with some areas being in excellent or pristine
condition.
The riparian areas of the canyons are comprised mostly
of grasses, rushes and sedges. Only in sheltered areas of
the main canyons and tributary canyons are species of
willow, aspen and cottonwood found. High water flows in
winter and early spring scour the canyon bottoms and
prevent growth of ~arger shrubs and tree species.
On the plateaus there is a vegetation mosaic of low
sagebrush species, big sagebrush (mostly Wyoming big
sagebrush), bunchgrasses and antelope bitterbrush.
Scattered western juniper are also spread over much of the
northern plateaus of Idaho within WSA OR-3-195(ID-16-48B).
Big sagebrush stands occupy deeper soil sites on generally
more than 50% of the land surface of the WSAs. Low sage­brush
stands occupy the shallower soil sites on about 35%
of the land surface with less than 15% of the plateau areas
being barren. The vegetation of the plateau area is
generally in good ecological condition close to the canyon
rims, but in poor to fair condition over the remainder of
the areas.
There are eight known plant species located in the
Owyhee canyons which are classified by the scientific
community as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. These
plants are discussed under planning criteria in Chapter v.
III-6
c. Wildlife Values:
The Owyhee River WSAs provide excellent habitat for
many species of wildlife. The primary species are
California bighorn sheep, mule deer, antelope, Canada geese
and other waterfowl, raptors and other birds, river otter,
beaver, mountain lion and bobcat. Wildlife diversity
associated with the rhyolite canyonlands/sagebrush­bunchgrass
ecosystem is a result of many vegetative types
that exist in unique habitat features created by the
joining of sagebrush-bunchgrass plateaus and deeply cut
canyons. Some species are dependent upon this ecosystem
for year-round habitat, and other species can be found
seasonally. For the most part, wildlife habitats are in
good condition on the steep slopes and canyon bottoms and
in fair to poor condition on the plateaus.
The rhyolite canyonlands/sagebrush-bunchgrass eco­system
provides yearlong habitat for bighorn sheep. The
bighorn are dependent upon wildlands canyon or mountain
habitat for their survival. California bighorn sheep (Oxis
canadensis californeana) were successfully reintroduced~
the Battle Creek, Deep Creek and Owyhee River canyon com­plex
(WSAs ID-16-49A, 16-49D and ill-49E) during the
sixties. Since that time, their population has expanded
westward along the Owyhee River into WSA OR-3-195
(ID-16-48B). There is a proposal to transplant bighorn
sheep into the canyon complex of the South Fork in WSA
ID-16-53(NV-010-103A). Presently an estimated population
of 400 bighorns inhabits the Owyhee canyonlands year
around. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game's planning
objectives call for a further increase of 75 sheep by 1985.
The proposed South Fork transplant could eventually result
in a population of over 600 bighorn sheep within Idaho and
Nevada. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is also
attempting to reintroduce bighorn sheep into the Owyhee
River Canyon of Oregon in WSA OR-3-195(ID-16-48B).
Mule deer are the most numerous big game species in
the WSAs. All of the WSAs have mule deer habitat of which
most is yearlqng range. Much of the_canyonlands also
provide crucial winter range for additional migratory deer.
Populations of pronghorn antelope are scattered
throughout the WSAs and are primarily limited to the
plateaus above the canyons. Important spring-summer-fall
ranges for pronghorn antelope can be found in WSAs
ID-16-49A, 16-49D and 16-49E. WSAs OR-3-195 (ID-16-48B),
ID-16-48C, 16-53 and a por.tion of 16-49A are considered
yearlong range.
The mountain lion is also a yearlong resident in the
canyonlands. Lions increase in number as the mule deer
concentrate during the winter months. The bobcat is a
III-7
111
I
'
''"I
.)I'
j,
I
II
i
111
,, '
,J
il
I'
l :II
I
t
yearlong resident, but does not increase in numbers during
the winter.
There are about 230 miles of perennial streams and
rivers in the WSAs. The associated riparian habitats of
the canyon bottoms are used more than any other habitat
type. The canyon bottoms provide a structural diversity
offered by water, sometimes a tree layer, a shrub layer and
a herbaceous layer that provide large amounts of nesting,
brood rearing, hiding, escape and thermal cover for high
densities of many species of wildlife, including the
smaller, non-game species.
The upper Owyhee River system is a rich reproductive
area for waterfowl. Four species of geese and eighteen
species of ducks occur in the WSAs as residents or
migrating species. Nesting geese have been reported at one
mile intervals along the river shoreline.
River otter and beaver can also be found along the
entire river complex. Their presence is dependent upon the
maintenance of good to excellent riparian areas and the
aquatic habitat conditions. However, the aquatic habitat
condition within the WSAs is mostly in fair or poor
condition.
The streams of the WSAs provide habitat for eight
principal species of fish. The species are red band trout,
smallmouth bass, dace, suckers, squawfish, shiners, chisel­mouth
and sculpins. The 178 perennial miles of the Owyhee
River system do not support a significant trout population
but do support an increasing number of smallmouth bass.
The WSAs also provide habitat for bird populations
including raptors, sage grouse and chukar partridge.
Golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, kestre~s, prairie falcons
and owls are the primary raptors found nesting in the
canyonlands. Golden eagles and red-tailed hawks nest at
two to three mile intervals along the main river canyons,
while prairie falcons and owls frequently nest in the
smaller tributary canyons. Kestrels nest throughout the
canyon systems. The major canyons also serve as winter
habitat for bald eagles. Sage grouse are found scattered
over the· plateaus and are one of the most important game
birds to be found. These birds tend to winter close to the
canyon rim in the vicinity of their strutting and breeding
grounds. Chukar partridge are another abundant upland game
bird species in the WSAs. Their habitat is located along
the canyon bottoms and lower canyon slopes. Mountain quail
are also found in the canyon of the South Fork Owyhee River
in WSA ID-16-53 (NV-010-103A).
III-8
d. Cultural Values
. B. RECREATION
The Owyhee River cany